USA v. Alberto Clavell
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50582 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: FPB , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 03/18/2011 for Appellant Alberto Clavell [10-50582]
Case: 10-50582 Document: 00511394223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
February 25, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ALBERTO CLAVELL, also known as Alberto Clavencio,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:09-CR-1133-1
Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Clavell appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Clavell contends
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was greater than
necessary to meet the sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). To
support his argument, he relies on the lack of an empirical basis to support the
illegal reentry Guideline, the double-counting of prior convictions by 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
Case: 10-50582 Document: 00511394223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2011
Guidelines, and the alleged failure of the sentence to take account of his history
We review the substantive reasonableness of Clavell’s sentence for an
abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United
States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). As Clavell raises
his empirical basis argument for the first time on appeal, however, we review
that argument for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92
(5th Cir. 2007).
As Clavell concedes, his empirical basis and double counting arguments
are foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 52931 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009); United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009);
United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 563 (5th Cir. 2008); United States
v. Calbat, 266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, his disagreement with
the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors does not suffice to show
error in connection with his sentence. See Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 565-66.
He has not shown that his sentence is unreasonable, and he has not shown that
the presumption of reasonableness should not be applied to his within-guidelines
sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.
2008). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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?