Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo ESCAJEDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-29
Citations: 326 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: Nos. 08-50725, 08-50727
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo ESCAJEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo ESCAJEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 08-50725, 08-50727
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 29, 2009.
District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eduardo Escajeda appeals the district court's imposition of consecutive terms of 77 months of imprisonment, imposed following Escajeda's guilty-plea conviction to importing marijuana with the intent to distribute it, and 33 months of imprisonment, imposed upon the revocation of a term of supervised release that Escajeda was serving in connection with a 2001 conviction. Escajeda argues that imposing his revocation sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for his drug offense resulted in an unreasonable sentence.
The district court considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when exercising its discretion to impose consecutive sentences. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-930 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 118-19 (5th Cir.2005); 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (policy statement); § 7B1.3 comment, (n.4).
The district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.