Filed: Feb. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10970 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIA ROMERO, also known as Comadre, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-239-4-A - February 4, 2002 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Maria Romero appeals her 80-month sentence of imprisonment following her conviction after pleading guilty
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-10970 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIA ROMERO, also known as Comadre, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-239-4-A - February 4, 2002 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Maria Romero appeals her 80-month sentence of imprisonment following her conviction after pleading guilty t..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10970
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIA ROMERO, also known as Comadre,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CR-239-4-A
--------------------
February 4, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Romero appeals her 80-month sentence of imprisonment
following her conviction after pleading guilty to distributing 73
pounds of marijuana and using a communications facility to
facilitate a drug offense. Romero asserts that the district court
erred in upwardly departing from the sentencing guidelines and that
the extent of its departure was unreasonable.
A district court’s decision to depart from the guidelines is
given substantial deference and reviewed for an abuse of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
1
discretion. See United States v. Ismoila,
100 F.3d 380, 397 (5th
Cir. 1996); United States v. Hemmingson,
157 F.3d 347, 361 (5th Cir.
1998). It will be affirmed on appeal if the district court offered
acceptable reasons for departing and the extent of the departure
was reasonable. United States v. Ashburn,
38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th
Cir. 1994) (en banc). “An upward departure may be warranted...in
the case of a defendant who did not organize, lead, manage, or
supervise another participant [in criminal activity], but who
nevertheless exercised management responsibility over the property,
assets, or activities of a criminal organization.” U.S.S.G. §
3B1.1, comment. (n.2).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in upwardly
departing from the sentencing guidelines in sentencing Romero. See
United States v. Milton,
147 F.3d 414, 421 (5th Cir. 1998). The
district court articulated that its upward departure was based on
Romero’s management role and U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). The
presentence report determined that Romero assumed responsibility
for the marijuana distribution business, and the testimony at
sentencing indicated that Romero was responsible for overseeing the
operation of the criminal organization. Based on this information,
the district court did not clearly err in finding that Romero
exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or
activities of a criminal organization. See
Id.
Furthermore, the extent of the district court’s upward
departure was reasonable. See
Id. The departure enhanced Romero’s
46-to-57-month guideline imprisonment range to the 78-to-97-month
range that would have been applicable had she been deemed a
2
supervisor of extensive criminal activity. See United States v.
Lara,
975 F.2d 1120, 1126, n.6 (5th Cir. 1992) (approving departure
sentences several times as long as the corresponding guideline
sentences and encouraging the consideration of other guideline
provisions in determining the extent of an upward departure). The
departure sentence was well below the total statutory maximum
sentence of 108 months and did not constitute a gross abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Huddleston,
929 F.2d 1030, 1031
(5th Cir. 1991) (holding that upward departure sentences within
statutory limits should not be disturbed absent a gross abuse of
discretion).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3