Court Opinion

ID: 9375343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:53.570355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.997338
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50418     Document: 00516655582         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/24/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                ____________
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                  No. 22-50418
                                Summary Calendar                            FILED
                                ____________                         February 24, 2023
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                Clerk

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   James Sonny Alaniz,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 7:21-CR-359-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          James Sonny Alaniz pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
   possess 50 grams or more of methamphetamine actual with intent to
   distribute. While his advisory guidelines range was 130 to 162 months of
   imprisonment, the district court decided to impose an upward departure

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-50418      Document: 00516655582           Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/24/2023

                                     No. 22-50418

   pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1) and sentenced Alaniz to 200 months of
   imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal,
   Alaniz challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his
   sentence.
          Section 4A1.3 provides for an upward departure if the defendant’s
   “criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of
   the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will
   commit other crimes.” § 4A1.3(a)(1). When a district court determines that
   a departure from Category VI is warranted, it should move “incrementally
   down the sentencing table to the next higher offense level in Criminal History
   Category VI” to reach an appropriate guidelines range. § 4A1.3(a)(4)(B). In
   this case, although the district court did not expressly state that it considered
   each step or provide reasons for rejecting each step in departing upward, it
   was not required to do so, and its reasoning implicitly established the
   rationale for rejecting the intervening levels. See United States v. Zuniga-
   Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 348 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006). Therefore, Alaniz has not
   demonstrated an error, plain or otherwise, as to the procedural soundness of
   his sentence. See id. at 347; see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
   (2009); United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2009).
          As to substantive reasonableness, the district court properly
   considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the facts of the case in
   determining that an upward departure was warranted. See Zuniga-Peralta,
   442 F.3d at 347. The district court’s reasons addressed Alaniz’s history and
   characteristics and the need to deter Alaniz from future criminal conduct.
   See § 3553(a)(1)-(2); Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d at 347. Alaniz contends that
   the district court failed to consider his serious medical conditions and the
   unlikelihood of his recidivism, but nothing suggests that the district court
   failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
   significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in

                                           2
Case: 22-50418     Document: 00516655582           Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/24/2023

                                    No. 22-50418

   balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213,
   221 (5th Cir. 2014). We therefore defer to the district court’s determination
   that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, warrant the departure and justify the
   extent of the upward departure imposed. See id.
          Given the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                         3