USA v. Felipe Rodriguez-Resendez
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-51300 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 10/30/2013 for Appellant Felipe Rodriguez-Resendez [12-51300]
Date Filed: 10/09/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
October 9, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-259-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Felipe Rodriguez-Resendez (Rodriguez) appeals from his within-guidelines
sentence of 77 months of imprisonment, which the district court imposed
following Rodriguez’s guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United
States after deportation. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence, arguing that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than
necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), because 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 10/09/2013
illegal reentry guideline includes prior convictions in arriving at the offense
level, and because illegal reentry is no more than an international trespass.
We review sentences for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of
discretion standard and accord within-guidelines sentences a presumption of
reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007); Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007). We have rejected the argument that illegal
reentry is merely a trespass offense that is treated too harshly under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2. United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006).
Further, Rodriguez’s dissatisfaction with the Sentencing Commission’s decision
to place significant emphasis on prior convictions in illegal reentry cases does
not render his sentence, imposed in line with that policy, beyond the discretion
of the district court. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339
(5th Cir. 2008). Additionally, Rodriguez’s disagreement with the district court’s
weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence.
See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
Rodriguez has not demonstrated that the district court abused its
discretion in sentencing him. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 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?