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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
Case: 12-51300 Document: 00512401407 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-51300 Summary Calendar October 9, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FELIPE RODRIGUEZ-RESENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant 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. PER CURIAM:* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-51300 Document: 00512401407 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 No. 12-51300 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. 2

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?