Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenet Del CID-RENDON, also known as Rendon Kenet Del Cid, Carlos Leonel and Keneth Leonel, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-05
Citations: 301 F. App'x 780
Docket Number: No. 08-3002
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenet Del CID-RENDON, also known as Rendon Kenet Del Cid, Carlos Leonel and Keneth Leonel, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 780–781

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenet Del CID-RENDON, also known as Rendon Kenet Del Cid, Carlos Leonel and Keneth Leonel, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-3002.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 5, 2008.
Terra D. Morehead, Office of United States Attorney Kansas City, Kansas City, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Raymond P. Moore, Federal Public Defender, Howard A. Pincus, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Kenet Del Cid-Rendon appeals the sentence imposed after his plea of guilty to charges arising out of a drug conspiracy. He challenges only the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, which was within the advisory guidelines range. Mr. CidRendon argues that his criminal-history category overrepresented his criminal history and that he should not have been treated the same as codefendant Edguar Lizardo-Figueroa, who was described in the presentence report as the other "lieutenant! ]" in the conspiracy. R. Vol. Ill at 18. Mr. Cid-Rendon has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness that we attach to a within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (10th Cir.2006). We therefore AFFIRM his sentence.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.