United States v. Jaime Rivas

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jaime Rivas

377 F. App'x 360

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 2010

Docket09-20318

StatusUnpublished

This text of 377 F. App'x 360 (United States v. Jaime Rivas) 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. Jaime Rivas, 377 F. App'x 360 (5th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

*361 PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Jaime Antonio Rivas appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after his deportation subsequent to committing an aggravated felony. Rivas contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is cruel and unusual and grossly disproportionate to his offense in light of the age of his prior conviction and his law-abiding behavior since his return to the United States. As Rivas did not object to his sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, we review it for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir.2007). Rivas has not established that his 57-month sentence, within the applicable guidelines range, was disproportionately harsh. See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284-85, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980); United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.1993).

Rivas also contends that his sentence violates the Equal Protection Clause because his high total offense level results in the same sentence as those imposed on individuals with higher criminal history categories and because the sentence he received is no longer than those imposed on individuals who illegally reenter the United States, but do not have prior aggravated felonies. Again, our review is for plain error. See Martinez, 496 F.3d at 389. Rivas has not established that “other persons similarly situated as is the claimant unfairly enjoy benefits that he does not or escape burdens to which he is subjected.” United States v. Cronn, 717 F.2d 164, 169 (5th Cir.1983); see also Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d at 1134. The sentence imposed by the district court is thus AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5tii Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

*361 PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Jaime Antonio Rivas appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after his deportation subsequent to committing an aggravated felony. Rivas contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is cruel and unusual and grossly disproportionate to his offense in light of the age of his prior conviction and his law-abiding behavior since his return to the United States. As Rivas did not object to his sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, we review it for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir.2007). Rivas has not established that his 57-month sentence, within the applicable guidelines range, was disproportionately harsh. See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284-85, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980); United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.1993).

Rivas also contends that his sentence violates the Equal Protection Clause because his high total offense level results in the same sentence as those imposed on individuals with higher criminal history categories and because the sentence he received is no longer than those imposed on individuals who illegally reenter the United States, but do not have prior aggravated felonies. Again, our review is for plain error. See Martinez, 496 F.3d at 389. Rivas has not established that “other persons similarly situated as is the claimant unfairly enjoy benefits that he does not or escape burdens to which he is subjected.” United States v. Cronn, 717 F.2d 164, 169 (5th Cir.1983); see also Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d at 1134. The sentence imposed by the district court is thus AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5tii 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 F. App'x 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jaime-rivas-ca5-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack