Case: 16-50723 Document: 00513898577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-50723 FILED
Summary Calendar March 6, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CLAUDIA ELENA MONTOYA,
Defendant-Appellant
Consolidated with 16-50739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CLAUDIA MONTOYA-DERIOS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:15-CR-1192-1
USDC No. 2:16-CR-37-1
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 16-50723 Document: 00513898577 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2017
No. 16-50723
Cons w/ No. 16-50739
PER CURIAM: *
Claudia Elena Montoya was convicted of illegal reentry and was
sentenced within the guidelines range to 57 months of imprisonment and three
years of supervised release. In a separate proceeding, her supervised release
was revoked, and she was sentenced to four months of imprisonment, to run
concurrently with the sentence for the illegal reentry conviction. Her appeals
from these judgments have been consolidated for our review.
Montoya contends that her 57-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. Her arguments pertain to the 57-month sentence imposed for her
illegal reentry conviction; she does not make any specific argument regarding
her revocation sentence. Accordingly, she has abandoned her appeal of her
revocation judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). She fails to demonstrate any error, plain or
otherwise, with respect to the substantive reasonableness of her sentence for
her illegal reentry conviction. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186
(5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th
Cir. 2008).
The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
2