United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 13, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10896
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS GARCIA, JR., also known as Jesus Garcia,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CR-29-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Garcia, Jr., appeals the 188-month sentence imposed
following entry of his guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine. Garcia asserts that the district
court erred by imposing an increase for obstruction of justice
and by denying a decrease for acceptance of responsibility.
Garcia contends that his sentence is so “unconstitutionally
excessive” as to be cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Because Garcia’s constitutional challenge is raised
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-10896
-2-
for the first time, we review for plain error only. See United
States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358-59 (5th Cir. 2005). To
obtain relief, Garcia must demonstrate error that is clear and
obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Villegas, 404
F.3d at 358. If these conditions are met, we may exercise
discretion to notice the forfeited error provided that the error
“seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 358-59 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
The district court sentenced Garcia at the bottom of the
applicable sentencing guidelines range; the Guidelines are a
“convincing objective indicator of proportionality.” United
States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (1993) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Garcia’s sentence is not
grossly disproportionate to his offense and does not violate the
Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928,
943 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263
(1980)). Garcia has not shown error, much less plain error.
Findings regarding obstruction of justice and acceptance of
responsibility are reviewed for clear error. United States v.
Outlaw, 319 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v.
Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 646 (5th Cir. 2002). The district court’s
findings are plausible in light of the record as a whole and are
not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Myers, 198 F.3d 160,
164 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.