Court Opinion

ID: 9388888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-22 00:00:27.90756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:23.699494
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40638        Document: 00516722257             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                     ____________                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 22-40638                                April 21, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jesus Zuniga,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:22-CR-185-3
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jesus Zuniga appeals the within-guideline sentence imposed following
   his conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams
   of cocaine. He contends the sentence is both procedurally and substantively
   unreasonable.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40638      Document: 00516722257          Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/21/2023

                                    No. 22-40638

          Contrary to Zuniga’s assertion, his request for a downward departure
   or variance did not preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the district
   court’s explanation of the sentence. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986
   F.3d 583, 586 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207 (2021). The record shows
   that the district court responded to Zuniga’s arguments and provided some
   explanation for his within-guideline sentence. Zuniga has not shown that
   more of an explanation was required for his within-guidelines sentence. See
   United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005).
          As for his substantive-reasonableness challenge, Zuniga preserved the
   issue for appeal by moving for a downward variance. See Holguin-Hernandez
   v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 767 (2020). At sentencing, the district court
   considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, found that the guideline range
   was appropriate, and found that a 96-month sentence was needed to protect
   the public and deter further criminal conduct. While Zuniga contends that
   the district court gave improper weight to the nature and circumstances of
   the offense and to his criminal history because of the disparity between his
   sentence and the 60-month sentence received by his co-defendant who
   possessed a gun, he ignores the disparity between his and his co-defendant’s
   criminal history category, which the district court explained was the driver of
   Zuniga’s higher guideline range.
          Zuniga has not shown that the district court considered an improper
   factor, failed to consider a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of
   judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589
   F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). His arguments amount to a mere disagreement
   with the sentence imposed, which is insufficient to support his contention
   that the sentence was unreasonable. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390,
   398 (5th Cir. 2010). He is essentially asking us to reweigh the § 3553(a)
   factors, which we will not do. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
   (2007).   Zuniga has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness

                                             2
Case: 22-40638      Document: 00516722257          Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/21/2023

                                    No. 22-40638

   applicable to his within-guideline sentence and has not shown that the district
   court abused its discretion. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166-
   67 (5th Cir. 2017); Cooks, 589 F.3d at 189.
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                             3