USA v. Carlos Chacon-Arviso

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-50860 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: RHB , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 05/21/2015 for Appellant Carlos Lorenzo Chacon-Arviso [14-50860]

Case: 14-50860

Document: 00513025490

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/30/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-50860
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 30, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
CARLOS LORENZO CHACON-ARVISO, also known as Carlos Chacon-Arviso,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:14-CR-647-1
Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Carlos

Lorenzo

Chacon-Arviso

challenges

the

substantive

reasonableness of his 60-month sentence, imposed after he pleaded guilty to
illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 14-50860

Document: 00513025490

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/30/2015

No. 14-50860
still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in
deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of
the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error.
E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
Chacon does not claim procedural error.

Instead, he challenges only the

substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
And, because he did not raise in district court the issues presented here,
review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 39192 (5th Cir. 2007). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain (clear
or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the
error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of the proceedings.

Id.

(Chacon maintains he was not

required to object regarding the substantive reasonableness of his sentence but
acknowledges our precedent required an objection. He makes this assertion to
preserve it for possible future review.)
Chacon contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
is greater than necessary to achieve the § 3553(a) sentencing goals, such as
claiming illegal reentry is merely “an international trespass” and the sentence
“fails to properly reflect Chacon’s personal history and characteristics”. As in
this instance, sentences within the properly calculated advisory Guideline
sentencing range are presumed reasonable. E.g., United States v. Alonzo, 435
F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).
Chacon claims this presumption should not apply, maintaining the
illegal-reentry Guidelines lack an empirical basis.

He acknowledges his

contention is foreclosed by our precedent, e.g., United States v. Mondragon-

2

Case: 14-50860

Document: 00513025490

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/30/2015

No. 14-50860
Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir. 2009), but raises it to preserve it for
possible future review. Chacon’s claim otherwise amounts to disagreeing with
the court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors; therefore, he fails to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See, e.g., United States v. Ruiz, 621
F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.

3