USA v. Pablo Felipe-Diego
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-51051 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 02/27/2017 for Appellant Pablo Felipe-Diego [15-51051]
Date Filed: 02/06/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fif h Circuit
February 6, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-260-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Pablo Felipe-Diego appeals the 37-month, above-guidelines sentence
imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He
asserts that the district court placed too much weight on his prior sentence for
illegal reentry and that it failed to consider his incentive to return to his family
in the United States as mitigating evidence.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 02/06/2017
The record supports that the district court had an adequate basis for the
sentence imposed and was guided by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in deciding
that an upward variance was warranted, particularly finding that a nonguidelines sentence addressed Felipe-Diego’s criminal history, which included
several convictions that did not receive criminal history points in the
Its written statement of reasons cited several of the
§ 3553(a) factors, including the history and characteristics of Felipe-Diego, the
need to promote respect for the law, and the goal of protecting the public from
further crimes by him. Thus, the district court’s reasons for imposing an
upward variance were fact-specific and consistent with the § 3553(a) factors.
See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006); see also United
States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008).
Nothing in the record suggests that the district court did not account for
a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight
to an improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in
balancing the sentencing factors. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. To the extent
that Felipe-Diego seeks to have this court reweigh those factors, we will not do
so. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Felipe-Diego offers
nothing more than conjecture when he argues that his previous sentence for
illegal reentry may have been based on an erroneous guidelines calculation
and therefore should not have been relied upon by the district court in
Similarly, his contention that the district court did not
consider mitigating evidence is unavailing given the record in this case.
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?