United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 25, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50492
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAURICIO GUZMAN-GUZMAN, also known as Mauricio Garcia-Guzman,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-247-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mauricio Guzman-Guzman (Guzman) pleaded guilty to count 1 of
an indictment charging him with conspiracy to transport illegal
aliens. The district court deviated from the guideline range by
12 months in sentencing Guzman to a 69-month term of imprisonment
and to a three-year period of supervised release. Guzman gave
timely notice of his appeal.
Guzman contends that the district court erred in deviating
upward from the guideline imprisonment range. See United States
v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). “A non-Guideline
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-50492
- 2 -
sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing
factors where it (1) does not account for a factor that should
have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to
an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error
of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Id. at 708.
Guzman complains that the district court failed to express
the reasons for its sentence in writing, contrary to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(c)(2). This contention is not supported by the record.
Written reasons were provided and put under seal.
Guzman contends that the 12-month deviation created an
unwarranted sentencing disparity between Guzman and defendants
with similar records who were found guilty of similar conduct.
Guzman complains that one of his codefendants, Leonel Guzman-
Guzman (Leonel Guzman), was sentenced within the guidelines
range. Because Leonel Guzman was not similarly situated, it was
reasonable for the district court to sentence Leonel Guzman
within the guideline range but to deviate from the Guidelines in
sentencing Guzman. See United States v. Duhon, 440 F.3d 711,
720–21 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (May 18, 2006).
Guzman also complains that his codefendant, Pascual Zapata-
Torres (Zapata), had a significantly more serious criminal
history category of VI and that Zapata’s behavior was
particularly cruel and abusive, but that the district court
departed downward in sentencing Zapata because Zapata rendered
substantial assistance to the Government. As Guzman concedes,
No. 05-50492
- 3 -
this court has recognized the provision of substantial assistance
to the Government as a legitimate reason for distinguishing
between defendants. See Duhon, 440 F.3d at 720–21.
AFFIRMED.