USA v. Fuentes-Valdiva
Filing
920091020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 09-50107 Conference Calendar October 20, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FABIAN FUENTES-VALDIVA, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:08-CR-2744-1
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Fabian Fuentes-Valdiva appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He asserts that the illegal reentry Guidelines double count a defendant's criminal record, resulting in a sentencing range that is greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He also argues that the guidelines range for his sentence was too severe because it failed to reflect that his offense is not evil or a crime of violence
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
*
No. 09-50107 and because it failed to consider that the reason he came back to the United States was to find work to support his son. We have rejected the argument that using a prior conviction to increase the offense level and in calculating criminal history is impermissible "double counting." See United States v. Calbat, 266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, Fuentes-Valdiva has not rebutted the presumption that the district court sentenced him to a reasonable and properly calculated within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?