USA v. Luis Morale

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-50694 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 08/27/2014 for Appellant Luis Enrique Morales [13-50694]

Case: 13-50694

Document: 00512724535

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/06/2014

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

FILED

No. 13-50694
Summary Calendar

August 6, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LUIS ENRIQUE MORALES,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CR-148-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Luis Enrique Morales challenges the upward variance sentence of 24
months, imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the
United States following deportation. Morales contends 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 district court gave too much weight to
his prior criminal convictions, and because the district court failed to give

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-50694

Document: 00512724535

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/06/2014

No. 13-50694
sufficient weight to the mitigating facts.

Morales argues that his prior

convictions were 15-20 years old, that he had changed in the intervening years,
that his recent offenses were only illegal reentry offenses, and that he had
returned to the United States only to support his family.
Morales has not shown that his sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect
the statutory sentencing factors” set forth in § 3553(a). See United States v.
Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Rather, the record shows that the
district court properly considered the advisory guidelines range, the § 3553(a)
factors, and the arguments of counsel. The district court considered Morales’s
several prior convictions, his repeated illegal reentry offenses, and the speed
with which he had returned to the United States after deportation. The district
court

concluded

that

the

sentence

reflected

Morales’s

history

and

characteristics, the need to promote respect for the law, the need to protect the
public, and the need to deter future crimes.

See § 3553(a).

Morales’s

disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is
insufficient to show an abuse of discretion.

See United States v. Lopez-

Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Although the sentence is 12
months above the top of the advisory guidelines sentencing range, we have
upheld variances of a greater magnitude. See United States v. Rhine, 637 F.3d
525, 526-27, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2011); Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d at 805, 805-08.
Morales’s 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of
these circumstances. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 348-49 (5th
Cir. 2008).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2