United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 20, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40610
c/w No. 06-40641
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ERWIN EURE DEAL
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-1093-ALL
USDC No. 5:05-CR-2536-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Erwin Eure Deal appeals the sentences imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for transportation of aliens for private
financial gain and his supervised release revocation on another
conviction for transportation of aliens for private financial
gain. Although Deal concedes that his sentences are to be
reviewed for reasonableness under this court’s precedent, Deal
also asserts that the presumption of reasonableness standard is
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40610
c/w No. 06-40641
-2-
unconstitutional. There is no need in this case to rely on a
presumption of reasonableness, and we explicitly do not.
We turn to Deal’s challenges to the reasonableness of his
sentences. Specifically, Deal argues that his consecutive
sentences of 33 months and 10 months of imprisonment, which are
within the applicable advisory sentencing guideline ranges, are
unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the district court
failed to give the mitigating factors proper consideration. The
record belies this argument. The district court listened to the
argument of Deal’s counsel urging the court to take into
consideration in fashioning Deal’s sentence his military service,
his lack of criminal history (with the exception of the prior
transporting conviction), and his drug use which allegedly led
him to commit the second transporting offense. The court
expressed concern that an educated man with a military background
and an important trucking job would turn to being a felon. The
court was also “deeply troubled” by the fact that Deal had
committed the alien transporting offense while on supervised
release for the same offense. The court noted that Deal had
received a “relatively lenient sentence” - eight months - on the
prior transporting case. The court described itself as
“motivated by those concerns” when it imposed sentence. To argue
that the district court did not consider the mitigating factors
proffered by Deal or the § 3553(a) factors generally in
fashioning the sentence assessed is simply not consistent with
No. 06-40610
c/w No. 06-40641
-3-
the record.
Deal has not shown that the 33 month sentence was
unreasonable. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th
Cir. 2005). Deal’s consecutive 10 month sentence on the
revocation of supervised release is neither unreasonable nor
plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114,
119-20 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006).
Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.