UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ (2019)

Michael Zachariah Gomez appeals the 36-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release term on substantive unreasonableness grounds. He contends that the district court gave no weight to the policy statement range of 4 to 10 months or to most of the relevant factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) while giving too much weight to a single § 3553(a) factor, deterrence.

We review Gomez’s sentence under the “plainly unreasonable standard,” which is highly deferential. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We recognize that Gomez’s sentence was well above the policy-statement range, but “[w]e have routinely affirmed revocation sentences exceeding the advisory range, even where the sentence equals the statutory maximum.” Id. at 332 (collecting cases). Moreover, Gomez has not established that the sentencing judge considered only deterrence while ignoring other factors. The judge’s statements about Gomez’s crimes while on parole speak to Gomez’s “history and characteristics,” as well as the need to “protect the public from further crimes.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (listing sentencing factors). Given the deference owed to the district court’s sentencing decision, Gomez has not established that his 36-month sentence was substantively unreasonable. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 326.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.