United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 4, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41617
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCO MAURICIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(4:04-CR-180-ALL)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marco Mauricio, having pleaded guilty to 14 counts of wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, challenges the
reasonableness of his sentence, pursuant to United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (requiring, inter alia,
“reasonableness” review of post-Booker sentences, to be guided by
the factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). After offense-level
adjustments for amount of loss and acceptance of responsibility,
his offense level was 12, with an advisory Guidelines range of 10-
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
16 months imprisonment. The imposed 24-month sentence was eight
months above the high end of this range.
“Where, as here, a district court imposes a post-Booker
non-Guidelines sentence—that is, one that deviates either above or
below the relevant Guidelines sentence as opposed to departing with
reference to an applicable Guidelines departure provision—we
conduct our reasonableness review through an abuse-of-discretion
lens, paying particular attention to the specific reasons given for
deviating from the Guidelines.” United States v. Armendariz, 451
F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2006). A non-Guidelines sentence is
unreasonable if it does not account for a factor that should have
received significant weight, gives significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or is the result of clear error in
balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d
704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).
The district court based its deviation from the high end of
the advisory sentencing range (deviation) on factors set forth in
§ 3553(a), including the nature and circumstances of the offense,
the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for
deterrence and to promote respect for the law, the seriousness of
the offense, the kind of sentences available, and the Guidelines
range. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1)-(4).
Mauricio has not shown that the district court failed to
account for a factor that should have received significant weight,
2
that the district court gave significant weight to an irrelevant or
improper factor, or that it was the result of clear error in
balancing the sentencing factors. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708.
Accordingly, the above-the-Guidelines-range sentence was
reasonable. See id. at 707-08.
AFFIRMED
3