USA v. Jose Sanchez-Castillo
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-50239 Affirmed ] Judge: FPB , Judge: CH , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 01/16/2013 for Appellant Jose Osvaldo Sanchez-Castillo [12-50239]
Date Filed: 12/26/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
December 26, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOSE OSVALDO SANCHEZ-CASTILLO,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:11-CR-2888-1
Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Osvaldo Sanchez-Castillo was sentenced to a 46-month term of
imprisonment following his guilty plea to illegal reentry of a deported alien. See
8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez-Castillo argues that his sentence, which is at the low
end of his advisory guidelines range of 46 to 57 months of imprisonment, is
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary as measured by the factors
identified in 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 12/26/2012
As no assertion is made that the sentence imposed resulted from any
procedural error committed by the district court, we confine our review to
whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). Sanchez-Castillo
argues that his sentence does not adequately take into account the
circumstances of his offense or his history. The district court at sentencing
considered the advisory guidelines range, Sanchez-Castillo’s objection to the
presentence report, his arguments in support of a variance from the advisory
guidelines range, his statement in allocution, and the factors identified in
§ 3553, determining that a 46-month sentence was appropriate. Thus, the record
reflects that the district court made an individualized determination at
sentencing based on the facts presented and in light of the § 3553(a) factors. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
“[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.
2006); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007). Sanchez-Castillo
argues, for the purpose of preservation of the issue for possible further review
by the Supreme Court, that a sentence imposed under § 2L1.2 should not be
accorded that presumption because it is not empirically based and thus results
in an excessive sentence. As he concedes, however, his argument is foreclosed
by United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2009), and United
States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).
Sanchez-Castillo has not shown that the district court failed to give proper
weight to his arguments or to any particular § 3553(a) factor. See United States
v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). He has thus failed to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness that is accorded his within-guidelines sentence.
See id.; United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 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?