USA v. Wilson Aguilar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-50215 Affirmed ] Judge: EMG , Judge: LHS , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 11/03/2011 for Appellant Wilson Alexander Aguilar [11-50215]

Case: 11-50215

Document: 00511631025

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/13/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 11-50215
Summary Calendar

October 13, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
WILSON ALEXANDER AGUILAR,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:10-CR-714-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wilson Alexander Aguilar appeals the 12-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United
States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). Aguilar argues
that his sentence, an upward variance from the advisory sentencing guidelines
range (one to seven months), was substantively unreasonable because it was
greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a).
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-50215

Document: 00511631025

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/13/2011

No. 11-50215
Aguilar has failed to demonstrate that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district
court heard the mitigating arguments of counsel and Aguilar’s statement
concerning his motive for returning to the United States. However, the district
court found that the mitigating factors were outweighed by Aguilar’s two prior
deportations, his use of an alias and false birth date, and his use of a fraudulent
social security number. The district court stated that it had considered the
§ 3553(a) factors, including the goals of deterrence and the protection of the
public. Id. at 80.
“[T]he sentencing court is free to conclude that the applicable Guidelines
range gives too much or too little weight to one or more factors, and may adjust
the sentence accordingly under § 3553(a).” United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526
F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Aguilar’s
disagreement with the extent of the upward variance and with the district
court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to demonstrate that the
district court abused its discretion in imposing his sentence or that his sentence
is substantively unreasonable. Id.
Further, the 12-month sentence was only five months above the top of the
sentencing guidelines range. This court has upheld variances considerably
greater than the increase to Aguilar’s sentence, see United States v. Brantley,
537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433,
441-42 (5th Cir. 2006), and it has also rejected arguments that a sentence was
substantively unreasonable because it constituted “some multiple of the upper
end of the guidelines range.” United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 476 n.1 (5th
Cir. 2010).
Aguilar has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in
imposing the 12-month sentence. The sentence is AFFIRMED.

2