USA v. Elvin Navarro-Navarro
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-50972 Affirmed ] Judge: CES , Judge: JWE , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 06/05/2015 for Appellant Elvin Navarro-Navarro [14-50972]
Date Filed: 05/15/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
May 15, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:14-CR-30
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit
PER CURIAM: *
Elvin Navarro-Navarro (Navarro) appeals the within-guidelines, 46month prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal
reentry into the United States. He contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
We review preserved challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 05/15/2015
(2007). Unpreserved challenges are reviewed for plain error. United States v.
Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 390-92 (5th Cir. 2007). We do not resolve whether
Navarro preserved his instant arguments for appeal because, even if his
arguments were preserved, he has shown no error, plain or otherwise. See
United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).
Before imposing a within-guidelines sentence, the district court
counterarguments, the advisory guidelines range, and the § 3553(a) factors,
including Navarro’s history and characteristics. Navarro has failed to show
that the district court did not consider a factor that should have received
significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor,
or made a clear error of judgment when it balanced the relevant factors. See
United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). He thus has failed
to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his withinguidelines sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337,
338 (5th Cir. 2008).
Furthermore, we have rejected substantive reasonableness challenges
based on the alleged lack of seriousness of an illegal reentry offense. See
United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). We have
also rejected the argument that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2’s double-counting of a prior
conviction in the calculation of a defendant’s offense level and criminal history
score necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable.
See United States v.
Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, as Navarro concedes, his
argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not be applied to his
within-guidelines sentence is foreclosed. See id. at 530-31; United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).
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?