USA v. Silvestre Robles-Torre

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-51170 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EHJ , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 09/04/2014 for Appellant Silvestre Raul Robles-Torres [13-51170]

Case: 13-51170

Document: 00512734051

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/14/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-51170
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 14, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

SILVESTRE RAUL ROBLES-TORRES, also known as Raul Robles,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:13-CR-1825
Before JOLLY, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Silvestre Raul Robles-Torres (Robles) appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United
States following removal. Robles argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet the goals of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He maintains that his within-guidelines range sentence
should not be considered presumptively reasonable because the Guideline

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-51170

Document: 00512734051

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/14/2014

No. 13-51170
under which he was sentenced, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based, but
he acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed.

He asserts that his

guidelines range was greater than necessary because § 2L1.2 double counted
his prior convictions and because his offense was a mere trespass. He contends
that the sentence failed to account for his personal history and characteristics
because it did not reflect that he had not previously served a sentence greater
than 24 months, that he returned to the United States because of threats
caused by his previous cooperation with authorities, his advanced age, his ties
to the United States, and his colon cancer diagnosis.
“[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th
Cir. 2006). As Robles concedes, his argument that his within-guidelines range
sentence should not be considered presumptively reasonable because § 2L1.2
is not empirically based is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d
528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).
The district court rejected Robles’s request for a below guidelines range
sentence and sentenced Robles at the top of the guidelines range based upon
Robles’s long history of violent crimes. The international trespass and the
double counting of prior convictions arguments that Robles raises have both
been previously raised in this court without success. See United States v.
Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006); Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31.
As Robles was sentenced within the guidelines range, the sentence is entitled
to a presumption of reasonableness, and Robles has not shown sufficient
reason for us to disturb that presumption. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,
523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

2