United States v. Eduardo Flores, 439 F. App'x 337

Flores and Lozano pleaded guilty to conspiracy to smuggle goods from the United States under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 554.
Flores was sentenced to 57 months and Lozano to 36 months, both within/below the Guidelines range.
The conspiracy involved exporting firearms and ammunition to Mexico; Lozano received six Colt carbine rifles, a Colt .38 pistol, 200 magazines, and 25 AR-15 magazines.
The weapons and magazines were designated as prohibited items on the U.S. Munitions List (USML).
The parties argue magazines should not have been used to set the base offense level under § 2M5.2(a)(1), potentially lowering Flores and Lozano to a reduced base offense level under § 2M5.2(a)(2).
Flores challenges the sentence as unreasonable due to alleged failure to consider his medical condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
whether magazines were properly included in base offense	Flores/Lozano contend magazines are not on USML, so base level should not include them.	District court erred by treating magazines as base offense ammunition components under § 2M5.2(a)(1).	No plain error; district court did not plainly err in applying § 2M5.2.
whether Flores's sentence is reasonable under plain error review	Flores argues the sentence did not adequately account for his medical impairments.	Responding that the district court considered his impairments and other factors; within-guidelines sentence should be presumed reasonable.	The within-guidelines sentence affirmed; Flores failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.

United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for the guidelines and factual findings)
United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review requires preserved or plain error)
United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2000) (preservation requirement and plain-error framework)
Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423 (Supreme Court 2009) (plain-error standard and substantial-rights impact)
United States v. Galvan-Revuelta, 958 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1992) (§ 2M5.2 considerations and base offense level)
United States v. Nissen, 928 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2019) (application of § 2M5.2 to firearm-related export offenses)
United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness review within guidelines)
United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness in within-guidelines sentences)
United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (balancing factors and surgical application of guidelines)