Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Exequiel HENRIQUEZ-GOMEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Jose Exequiel Henriquez-Gomez challenges his 48-month sentence of imprisonment following his guilty plea conviction for being an alien, illegally or unlawfully in the United States, in possession of a firearm.
Because Henriquez-Gomez “advocate[d] for a sentence shorter than the one ultimately imposed,” he preserved his challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67, 206 L.Ed.2d 95 (2020). Accordingly, we review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 2010).
The record does not show that the district court failed to account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court properly considered Henriquez-Gomez's uncharged conduct under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21 and as a basis for an upward variance. United States v. Newsom, 508 F.3d 731, 735 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Despite Henriquez-Gomez's arguments otherwise, the court made no suggestion that it was considering any perceived benefit from Henriquez-Gomez's decision to plead guilty to the firearms charge rather than to an illegal reentry offense. The court considered the parties’ arguments, Henriquez-Gomez's allocution, his criminal history, and the nature and circumstances of his offense. Under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. 2012).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-20429
Decided: July 21, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)