Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel DIAZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-29
Citations: 705 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 17-10347 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel DIAZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 705
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel DIAZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-10347 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed November 29, 2017
Russell Lorfing, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After Defendant-Appellant Victor. Manuel Diaz-Gomez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, the district court varied upward from the guidelines range and sentenced him to an 18-month term of imprisonment and a one-year period of supervised release. Diaz-Gomez contends that the sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the district court's balancing of the sentencing factors involved a clear error of judgment..
We review sentences for procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the arguments presented by Diaz-Gomez and the Government and pertinent portions of the record on appeal, we defer to the district court's determination of an appropriate sentence in this case. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). The 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.