USA v. Adelmo Villeda-Mejia

Filing 920100329

Case: 09-20394

Document: 00511064887

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/29/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 09-20394 Summary Calendar March 29, 2010 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ADELMO VILLEDA-MEJIA, also known as Luis Guevara-Laines, also known as Walter Adelmo Villeda Mejia, also known as Walter Villeda-Mejia, also known as Aldelmo Walter Villeda, also known as Luis Santos Guevara-Laines, also known as Aldemo Walterl Villeda, also known as Adelmo Villeda Mejia, also known as Luis S. Santos Guevara-Laines, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-44-1

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Adelmo Villeda-Mejia appeals the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation. Villeda-Mejia contends that the district court committed significant procedural error in its consideration and weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and in failing to adequately

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-20394

Document: 00511064887 Page: 2 No. 09-20394

Date Filed: 03/29/2010

explain the sentence imposed. substantively unreasonable.

He further argues that the sentence was

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review sentences for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in § 3553(a). United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), we engage in a bifurcated review of the sentence imposed by the district court. United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2009). First, we consider whether the district court committed a significant procedural error. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there is no such error, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed for an abuse of discretion. Id. "[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation." Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). "Where the defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence . . . the judge will normally go further and explain why he has rejected those arguments." Id. at 357. The explanation requirement may be satisfied if the district court listens to arguments and then indicates that a sentence within the guidelines range is appropriate. Id. at 357-59. Here, the district court, after hearing argument of counsel for a belowguidelines sentence, briefly but amply stated its reasons for choosing a withinguidelines sentence. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525-26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008). This court has consistently rejected the argument that a sentence within a guidelines range calculated using the illegalreentry Guideline is not presumed reasonable on appeal. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009). The record shows that the district court based Villeda-Mejia's sentence on the advisory guidelines range, the information in the presentence report, and the § 3553(a) factors. The court considered Villeda-Mejia's arguments for a sentence 2

Case: 09-20394

Document: 00511064887 Page: 3 No. 09-20394

Date Filed: 03/29/2010

below guidelines range and the Government's arguments against such a sentence and determined that a 42-month sentence was appropriate. VilledaMejia is essentially asking this court to substitute his assessment of the appropriate sentence for that of the district court, which we will not do. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. He has not established that the district court abused its discretion in imposing his sentence, and he has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008). Villeda-Mejia has failed to show that the sentence is unreasonable. The sentence is AFFIRMED.

3