Opinion ID: 4278941
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Flores

Text: Flores argues that his sentence is substantially unreasonable because the court attributed improper amounts of methamphetamine to him, denied his motion for downward departure, and failed to properly consider his history and character. At sentencing, the court informed the parties that it considered every factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Based on the evidence at trial, the court calculated that Flores “should be held accountable for 2,265.9 grams of ice methamphetamine, resulting in a score of 36.” The court then found obstruction of justice because Flores tried to influence the testimony of a witness and he used a false name and birth certificate in an attempt to confuse law enforcement. This resulted in a two-point upward adjustment to level 38. Flores had a criminal history of I. The Guideline range for the offense was 235 to 293 months. The court sentenced Flores to the statutory maximum of 240 months, a sentence near the low end of the Guideline range. In explaining the sentence the court noted Flores’s substantial criminal behavior even while under court supervision and his high risk to recidivate. -23- The sentence is within the correctly-calculated Guideline range. Nothing in the record supports a finding that the sentence is substantially unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Flores to 240 months’ incarceration.