United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 10, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30431
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ANGEL NEGRON CABRERA,
also known as Jose Negron Cabrera,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(2:04-CR-20155-ALL)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Angel Negron Cabrera appeals the 114-month sentence,
subsequent to his guilty-plea conviction of assault with dangerous
weapons. Imposed subsequent to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005) (holding Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory), the
sentence is twice the high end of the advisory guideline range of
imprisonment. He claims it is unreasonable.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
In our review for unreasonableness vel non, United States v.
Reinhart, ___ F.3d ___, No. 05-30245, 2006 WL 541037, at *3 (5th
Cir. 7 Mar. 2006), we first consider whether the district court
justified its decision to sentence outside the advisory Guidelines
range “with fact specific reasons involving aggravating
circumstances, personal characteristics of the defendant, his
offense conduct, criminal history, or other conduct specific to the
case at hand”. Id. at *4 (internal quotation omitted). The
district court thoroughly articulated its reasons for imposing a
non-Guideline-range sentence. See United States v. Smith, ___ F.3d
___, No. 05-30313, 2006 WL 367011, at *2 (5th Cir. 17 Feb. 2006).
Next, we review the court’s reasons for its departure in the
light of the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
“defer[ring] to the district court’s reasonable assessment of
th[ose] statutory factors”. Reinhart, ___ F.3d at ___, 2006 WL
541037, at *5. In fashioning Cabrera’s sentence, the district
court properly considered the advisory guideline range and the §
3553(a) factors. See Smith, ___ F.3d at ___, 2006 WL 367011, at
*2-*3. The sentence does not fail to account for any sentencing
factor that should have received significant weight, and the court
did not rely on any irrelevant or improper factors. Id. at *3.
Furthermore, the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a)
factors does not represent a clear error of judgment. Id.
Accordingly, the sentence is reasonable.
2
AFFIRMED
3