Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Secondino MEZA-URTADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-25
Citations: 163 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 05-2434
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Secondino MEZA-URTADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, and Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 413–413

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Secondino MEZA-URTADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-2434.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2006.
Decided Jan. 25, 2006.
Gabriel A. Fuentes, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Joshua G. Vincent, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, and Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This is (we hope) the final act of a saga that began in 2001 when Secondino Meza-Urtado was involved in a three-kilo cocaine deal in Chicago. After Meza (we shorten his name) was convicted on federal drug charges, he appealed, and the government filed a cross-appeal challenging a downward departure (to 70 months) Meza received. As bad luck would have it, Meza lost and the government won. See United States v. Mezos-Urtado, 351 F.3d 301 (7th Cir.2003). Back in the district court, Meza was sentenced again, this time to a term of 78 months.
Meza appeals again, and he must lose again. His 78-month sentence, the low end of a properly determined advisory guideline range, cannot, based on the fine record made in the district court, be viewed as unreasonable. The judgment of the district court, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.