Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elicio Menelao TRIANA-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-29
Citations: 637 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 15-10661
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elicio Menelao TRIANA-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 185–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elicio Menelao TRIANA-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10661
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 29, 2016.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elicio Menelao Triana-Herrera (Triana) pleaded guilty of unlawful use of a counterfeit alien registration document, and the district court varied upward from the guidelines imprisonment range in sentencing him to a 20-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. Triana contends that the district court abused its discretion in overruling his objection to the substantive reasonableness of the above-guidelines sentence. He asserts that the district court gave too much weight to remote and un-scored prior convictions and inadequate consideration to his personal history and characteristics.
The district court's sentence did not unreasonably fail to reflect the statutory sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir.2006). We will defer to the district court's determination of the appropriate sentence. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir.2008). The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5m Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5m Cir. R. 47.5.4.