Opinion ID: 620949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the district court erred in sentencing Ochoa.

Text: In his third issue on appeal, Ochoa argues that the district court erred at sentencing in finding the Government had proven its enhancement allegations, and then sentencing below the mandatory minimum. Where a defendant fails to object to a sentencing enhancement, we review for plain error. United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 2005). Ochoa's argument is factually incorrect: the district court did not apply the sentencing enhancement. The government sought a sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), which provides that [i]f any person commits . . . a violation [of this subsection] after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years and not more than life imprisonment. Although the district court found at the sentencing hearing that the government had proven the facts necessary to justify the sentencing enhancement, it did not apply it out of an abundance of caution. [4] Rather, it sentenced him to 235 months, less than the statutory minimum of 20 years that would have been triggered had the district court chosen to apply the Section 841(b)(1)(A) enhancement. The recommended Guidelines range for Ochoa was 188 to 235 months' imprisonment, and the district court sentenced Ochoa at the top of the range, 235 months. Within-Guidelines sentences enjoy a presumption of reasonableness and are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Scott, 654 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir.2011). Ochoa does not challenge the Guidelines calculation. Nor does he address the fact that the district court sentenced him within Guidelines. He briefly argues that his sentence shocks the conscience when compared to Guerra's sentence of three years' imprisonment. However, Guerra cooperated with DEA agents and assumed responsibility for his crime by pleading guilty. In any event, a mere disparity of sentences among co-defendants does not, alone, constitute an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lemons, 941 F.2d 309, 320 (5th Cir.1991). The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Ochoa. AFFIRMED.