USA v. Miguel Medina-Martinez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-50707 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: JWE , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 05/13/2013 for Appellant Miguel Medina-Martinez [12-50707]

Case: 12-50707

Document: 00512215936

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/22/2013

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

FILED
No. 12-50707
Summary Calendar

April 22, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MIGUEL MEDINA-MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:11-CR-2300-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Medina-Martinez (Medina) appeals the 21-month within-guidelines
sentence he received following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after having been
previously deported. He asserts that his sentence is greater than necessary to
satisfy the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not take into account his personal
history and characteristics, particularly his benign motive for returning. Medina
also contends that he was punished disproportionately for his prior moneylaundering conviction because it was used to increase his criminal history score
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-50707

Document: 00512215936

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/22/2013

No. 12-50707
by three points and to increase his base offense level by eight levels.
Additionally, he asserts, in reliance on Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85,
109-10 (2007), that a presumption of reasonableness does not apply to his
within-guidelines sentence because the illegal reentry guideline, § 2L1.2, is not
empirically supported.
We review sentences for reasonableness by engaging in a bifurcated
review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). First, we must ensure that
the sentencing court committed no significant procedural error. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. If the sentencing decision is procedurally sound, we should then
consider the “substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. Medina raises no claim of procedural error
and challenges only his sentence’s substantive reasonableness.
As he concedes, Medina’s empirical data argument is foreclosed. See
United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). His argument that the
district court placed disproportionate emphasis on his prior money-laundering
conviction is essentially an argument that guidelines range was greater than
necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s goals as a result of double counting, which
argument is likewise unavailing. See Duarte, 569 F.3d 529-31.
The district court had before it both mitigating and aggravating factors;
it balanced these factors and determined that a sentence in the middle of the
guidelines range was appropriate. Medina is essentially asking this court to
reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which it will not do. “[T]he sentencing judge is in
a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with
respect to a particular defendant.”

United States v. Campos-Maldonado,

531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). That an appellate court “might reasonably
have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify

2

Case: 12-50707

Document: 00512215936

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/22/2013

No. 12-50707
reversal of the district court.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, the withinguidelines sentence imposed by the district court is presumptively reasonable,
and Medina’s argument concerning his benign motive for reentry fails to rebut
that presumption. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); see also
United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

3