Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto Gonzalez MENDOZA, also known as Huahuis, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 225 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 06-10157
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto Gonzalez MENDOZA, also known as Huahuis, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto Gonzalez MENDOZA, also known as Huahuis, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10157
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 2007.
Susan B. Cowger, Daniel D. Guess, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Patrick R. Cowlishaw, Jackson Walker, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roberto Gonzales Mendoza (Mendoza) appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Mendoza was sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment.
Mendoza fails to show that the court committed clear error by increasing his sentence based on the presence of two firearms in the house where he was arrested and where a large amount of cocaine and cash was seized. See United States v. Farias, 469 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 1502, 167 L.Ed.2d 241 (2007). Mendoza also fails to show that the court abused its discretion and imposed an unreasonable sentence where the court declined to reduce the sentence due to Mendoza's deportability and where the court did not give a detailed explanation of its consideration of the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.