Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto Armando TENA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-06
Citations: 359 F. App'x 511
Docket Number: No. 09-50459
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto Armando TENA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 359
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto Armando TENA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50459
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 6, 2010.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas L. Wright, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Roberto Armando Tena appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea convictions for importing 50 kilograms or more of marijuana and possessing with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana. He argues that it was unreason able for the district court not to grant a downward variance because the sentence imposed fails to account for his physical and mental impairments.
Tena's 24-month sentence, which is at the lowest end of the properly calculated guidelines range, is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008). The district court considered Tena's request for a downward variance, but determined that his argument regarding the relationship between his impairments and the commission of the offenses was speculative. Tena has not shown sufficient reason to disturb the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his sentence.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.