USA v. Lorenzo Arredondo-Duenas

Filing

USA v. Lorenzo Arredondo-Duenas

Doc. 0

Case: 09-51016

Document: 00511205669

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/17/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-51016 C o n fe r e n c e Calendar August 17, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. L O R E N Z O ARREDONDO-DUENAS, also known as Lorenzo Arredondo-Duenes, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 3:09-CR-1671-1

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* L o r e n z o Arredondo-Duenas (Arredondo) appeals the 77-month sentence h e received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United S t a te s following deportation. He asserts that his sentence, despite being within t h e applicable guidelines range, was substantively unreasonable because it was g r e a t e r than needed to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He notes t h a t the defense arguments at sentencing focused on his cultural assimilation a n d his improved character and prospects in Mexico.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-51016

Document: 00511205669 Page: 2 No. 09-51016

Date Filed: 08/17/2010

B e c a u s e Arredondo did not object to the imposed sentence as u n r e a s o n a b le , we review this claim for plain error. United States v. Peltier, 505 F .3 d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Arredondo's disagreement with the withing u id e lin e s sentence imposed does not suffice to rebut the presumption of r e a s o n a b le n e s s . See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 2007; United States v . Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. G o m e z -H e r r e r a , 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). A d d it io n a lly , Arredondo contends that the applicable guidelines range of 7 7 -9 6 months in prison was too severe because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 was not e m p ir ic a lly based. This court has consistently rejected Arredondo's "empirical d a t a " argument. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir.), c e r t. denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009). Additionally Arredondo has not established t h a t this court may not apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence im p o s e d within the applicable guidelines range. See United States v.

M o n d r a g o n -S a n tia g o , 564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2 0 0 9 ). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2