Court Opinion

ID: 9590964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:00:32.552941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:28.919378
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40801        Document: 00516865895             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/21/2023

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

                                                                                            FILED
                                      No. 22-40801                                    August 21, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Mark Anthony Calzadias,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:18-CR-204-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Mark Anthony Calzadias pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
   the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to
   commit money laundering. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C.
   § 1956(h), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(b)(i). On four bases he challenges his within-
   Guidelines prison sentence of 420 months.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40801       Document: 00516865895           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                      No. 22-40801

            Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
   the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
   calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
   38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
   objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
   under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-
   Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
   preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de
   novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
   Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
            Calzadias first contends the district court procedurally erred on three
   bases:    failing to give him credit at sentencing for his acceptance of
   responsibility because he challenged the presentence investigation report’s
   (PSR)       drug-quantity     determination       and    application    of    the
   U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) enhancement; double counting the aggravating-role
   enhancement; and failing to adequately explain his sentence.
            Because Calzadias did not raise these issues in district court, review is
   only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th
   Cir. 2012). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear-
   or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected
   his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If
   he makes that showing, our court has the discretion to correct the reversible
   plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the
   fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation
   omitted).
             First, the court expressly disagreed with the Government’s
   contention at sentencing to take away the reduction for acceptance of
   responsibility because of Calzadias’ challenging the drug quantity and the

                                            2
Case: 22-40801      Document: 00516865895          Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                    No. 22-40801

   Guideline § 3B1.1(a) enhancement. The court adopted the PSR, which
   included the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under
   Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and (b). In short, there was no plain error on that basis.
            Second, the record does not reflect any impermissible double
   counting. And, Calzadias does not adequately explain where this alleged
   double counting occurred, nor does he cite any authority supporting this
   would require vacatur. See United States v. Jimenez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d 527,
   541 (5th Cir. 2017) (“It is well established that the Guidelines do not prohibit
   double counting except when the particular Guideline at issue expressly does
   so.” (citation omitted)). He again fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious
   error.
            Third, in arriving at the sentence, the court stated that it had
   considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the Sentencing
   Guidelines, and after “considering the testimony from the agent and the
   [PSR]”, it declined to vary below the guidelines range because of Calzadias’
   “involvement in the amount of drugs”. The court therefore provided a
   “reasoned basis” for its decision. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
   (2007); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005) (providing
   “little explanation is required” when court orders within-Guidelines
   sentence).
            For his final contention Calzadias maintains his sentence is
   substantively unreasonable. Assuming he preserved this challenge, he has
   not shown the court considered an improper factor, failed to consider a
   relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the
   § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214
   (5th Cir. 2013). Rather, his assertions amount to a mere disagreement with
   the sentence imposed, which is insufficient to show error. See United States
   v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, Calzadias has

                                          3
Case: 22-40801     Document: 00516865895         Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                  No. 22-40801

   failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-
   Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337,
   338 (5th Cir. 2008).
         AFFIRMED.

                                       4