United States v. Antonio Yahuaca

691 F. App'x 186
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 21, 2017
Docket16-50838 Summary Calendar
StatusUnpublished

This text of 691 F. App'x 186 (United States v. Antonio Yahuaca) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Antonio Yahuaca, 691 F. App'x 186 (5th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Antonio Yahuaca appeals the 240-month below-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Because Yahuaca committed the offense after two prior felony convictions for controlled substance offenses, his guidelines range was calculated pursuant to the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career-offender guideline. He now argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his offense. He also contends that his presentence investigation report (PSR) should not have included two § 2D1.1 offense-level enhancements. We review these unpreserved issues for plain error. See United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 155 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).

Yahuaca has failed to establish any error, let alone plain error. His below-guidelines 240-month sentence was not grossly *187 disproportionate to the severity of his controlled substance offense. See United States v. Mills, 843 F.3d 210, 217 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1601, 197 L.Ed.2d 726 (2017) (No. 16-8524); see also Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 265-67, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980). The § 2D1.1 offense-level enhancements reflected in his PSR were not included in the enhanced career-offender guidelines range considered by the district court at sentencing, so his challenge to those enhancements is likewise meritless.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R, 47.5,4,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago
564 F.3d 357 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
Rummel v. Estelle
445 U.S. 263 (Supreme Court, 1980)
United States v. Joseph Ebron
683 F.3d 105 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Taylor Mills
843 F.3d 210 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
691 F. App'x 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-antonio-yahuaca-ca5-2017.