USA v. Inmer Velasquez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50049 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JES , Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 10/22/2010 for Appellant Inmer Velasquez [10-50049]

USA v. Inmer Velasquez

Doc. 0

Case: 10-50049

Document: 00511250780

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/01/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-50049 S u m m a r y Calendar October 1, 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. I N M E R VELASQUEZ, also known as Israel Ramirez-Suarez, also known as I n m e r Zuniga Velasquez, also known as Inmer Zuniga, also known as Zuniga V e la s q u e z , also known as Israel Suarez Ramirez, 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. 1:09-CR-444-1

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* I n m e r Velasquez appeals the 57-month sentence imposed in connection w it h his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and t h a t he should have been sentenced below the guidelines range. Velasquez a r g u e s that his benign motives for reentry support a sentence below the

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-50049

Document: 00511250780 Page: 2 No. 10-50049

Date Filed: 10/01/2010

g u id e lin e s range. He also argues that the illegal reentry guideline's emphasis o n criminal history and lack of empirical grounding led to an unreasonable s e n te n ce . I n reviewing a sentence, we normally "consider[] the `substantive r e a s o n a b le n e s s of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.'" United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting G a ll v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Because Velasquez did not object t o his sentence as unreasonable after it was pronounced by the district court, our r e v ie w is limited to review for plain error. See United States v. Anderson, 5 5 9 F.3d 348, 358 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2814 (2009). A plain error is a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects the defendant's substantial r ig h t s . United States v. Gonzalez-Guzman, 597 F.3d 695, 696 (5th Cir. 2010). When those elements are shown, this court has the discretion to correct the error o n ly if it "seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial p r o c e e d in g s ." Id. W e are not persuaded that the illegal reentry guideline's emphasis on a d e fe n d a n t 's criminal history and lack of empirical grounding necessarily renders a sentence computed under that guideline unreasonable. See United States v. D u a r te , 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009); U n ite d States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). V e la s q u e z 's personal history and characteristics, including his motives for r e e n te r in g the United States, are insufficient to rebut the presumption of r e a s o n a b le n e s s . See Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 565-66. Velasquez has not d e m o n s t r a t e d that the district court's imposition of a 57-month sentence, a s e n te n c e at the top of the properly calculated guidelines range, was plain error. T h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2