USA v. Jose Guerrero-Rodriguez
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10982 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 08/07/2017 for Appellant Jose Guadalupe Guerrero-Rodriguez [16-10982]
Date Filed: 07/17/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
July 17, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOSE GUADALUPE GUERRERO-RODRIGUEZ,
Also Known as Jesus Lopez Cabral,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-17-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Guerrero-Rodriguez appeals the above-guidelines sentence imposed
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 07/17/2017
for illegal reentry after deportation. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, which we review for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A non-Guidelines sentence unreasonably fails
to reflect the statutory sentencing factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
where it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant
weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or
(3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.”
United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). “[R]eview for substantive reasonableness is highly deferential.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
The court based the sentence on permissible statutory factors.
essence, Guerrero-Rodriguez is requesting that this court reweigh the
§ 3553(a) factors, which is not within the scope of our review.
552 U.S. at 51. There is no indication that the district court gave improper
weight to Guerrero-Rodriguez’s extensive history of immigration violations or
any mitigating factors. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804,
807 (5th Cir. 2008). Likewise, the degree of the upward variance does not
render the sentence substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Key,
599 F.3d 469, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347,
348–50 (5th Cir. 2008).
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?