USA v. Luis Muniz-Monsivai
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10858 Affirmed] Judge: WED, Judge: LHS, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 04/05/2017 for Appellant Luis Alberto Muniz-Monsivais [16-10858]
Date Filed: 03/15/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fif h Circuit
March 15, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
LUIS ALBERTO MUNIZ-MONSIVAIS,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:16-CR-3-1
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: *
Luis Alberto Muniz-Monsivais received a 36-month, above-Guidelines
term of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release after
pleading guilty to illegally reentering the United States following deportation.
He argues that his prison sentence is substantively unreasonable. Our review
is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 03/15/2017
In fashioning its sentence, the district court permissibly took into
account Muniz-Monsivais’s prior convictions for illegally entering the country
and his history of prior removals and reentries. See United States v. LopezVelasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008).
protestations that his criminal history was not unusual, extraordinary
circumstances are not required to justify an above-Guidelines sentence. Id.
(citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 47). Although Muniz-Monsivais disputes the court’s
determination that he lacked respect for the law, his history of illegally
returning to the country after being deported supports this finding. See id.
Although the district court imposed a sentence 15 months higher than
the top end of the Guidelines range, that court was in the best position to judge
Muniz-Monsivais and the circumstances of the offense. See United States v.
Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 812–13 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court tied the
reasons for its sentence to specific facts, particularly Muniz-Monsivais’s
history of removals and illegal reentries and his lack of respect for the laws of
the United States. The court made an individualized assessment and was free
to conclude as it did that, in Muniz-Monsivais’s case, the Guidelines range gave
insufficient weight to some of the sentencing factors, including the seriousness
of the offense, Muniz-Monsivais’s history and characteristics, the need to
promote respect for the law, the need to protect the public, and the need to
deter Muniz-Monsivais from engaging in future criminal conduct.
U.S.C. § 3553(a); Williams, 517 F.3d at 809. Nothing suggests that the district
court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight,
gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment
in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704,
708 (5th Cir. 2006).
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?