USA v. Jose Rodriguez Villalobo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-20605 Affirmed 16-20606 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: JES Mandate pull date is 09/11/2017 for Appellant Jose Emilio Rodriguez Villalobos [16-20605, 16-20606]

Download PDF
Case: 16-20605 Document: 00514125075 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-20605 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. JOSE EMILIO RODRIGUEZ VILLALOBOS, also known as Jose Villalobos Rodriguez, also known as Jose Emilio Villalobos-Rodriguez, also known as Jose V. Rodriguez, also known as Jose Emilo Rodriguez-Villalobos, also known as Jose Emilio Rodriguez, Defendant - Appellant Cons. w/No. 16-20606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. JOSE EMILIO RODRIGUEZ VILLALOBOS, also known as Jose Emilio Rodriguez-Villalobos, also known as Jose Villalobos Rodriguez, also known as Joe Villabos Rodriquez, also known as Jose Emilio Rodriguez, also known as Jose Emilio Villalobos-Rodriguez, also known as Jose V. Rodriguez, also known as Miguel Rodriguez, also known as Jose Emilo Rodriguez-Villalobos, also known as Jose Rodriguez-Villalobos, Defendant - Appellant Case: 16-20605 Document: 00514125075 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2017 No. 16-20605 c/w No. 16-20606 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-6-1 USDC No. 4:16-CR-179-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Emilio Rodriguez Villalobos appeals his 71-month sentence for illegal reentry. He contends that the district court made a clear error of judgment balancing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) where the guidelines sentencing range was 33 to 41 months. According to Rodriguez Villalobos, the district court gave undue weight to his criminal history, the need to protect the public, and the need to promote respect for the law because his prior offenses were largely nonviolent and many received short sentences. This court gives “due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court appropriately relied on Rodriguez Villalobos’s extensive criminal history, his pattern of illegally reentering the United States, the failure of earlier 30-month and 48-month illegal reentry sentences to deter him, and his swift return and resumption of crime after his most recent deportation. Rodriguez Villalobos has made no showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, that it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or 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. * 2 Case: 16-20605 Document: 00514125075 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/21/2017 No. 16-20605 c/w No. 16-20606 improper factor, or that it represents a clear error in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). We find no abuse of discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. Likewise, we find no merit in Rodriguez Villalobos’s contention that we should vacate his revocation sentence because it was influenced by an unreasonable illegal reentry sentence. To the extent he also challenges the adequacy of the district court’s reasons for the revocation sentence, the issue is not briefed adequately for our consideration. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Finally, Rodriguez Villalobos asserts that the district court erred in determining that his Texas theft offense constituted the generic offense of theft. He concedes that the argument is foreclosed but raises it to preserve it for further review. See United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 F.3d 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2014). AFFIRMED. 3

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?