United States v. Lizette Luna , 699 F. App'x 334 ( 2017 )

Case: 17-40311 Document: 00514203658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-40311 FILED
Summary Calendar October 20, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LIZETTE LUNA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:16-CR-1010-1
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Lizette Luna pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute
approximately 291.5 kilograms of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The district court imposed a sentence of 48 months
of imprisonment, which was an upward variance from the advisory guideline
range of 30 to 37 months.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 17-40311 Document: 00514203658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2017
No. 17-40311
Luna argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable and
greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). She claims
that in varying from the advisory guideline range, the district court placed too
much weight on the fact that she was out on bond for another drug offense
when she committed this offense and an upward variance was substantively
unreasonable because she continued her criminal activity only after drug
traffickers threatened to harm her and her family. We review the substantive
reasonableness of Luna’s sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007).
The district court was aware of Luna’s claim that she agreed to do a
“second run” of marihuana only after being threatened by drug traffickers.
Although Luna “may disagree with how the district court balanced the
§ 3553(a) factors, [her] argument that these factors should have been weighed
differently is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v. Malone,
828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 526 (2016).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2