USA v. Rolando Escamilla-Romero

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50269 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JLW , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 01/30/2017 for Appellant Rolando Antonio Escamilla-Romero [16-50269]

Case: 16-50269

Document: 00513826873

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-50269
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
January 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROLANDO ANTONIO ESCAMILLA-ROMERO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:15-CR-596-1
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Rolando Antonio Escamilla-Romero appeals the
within-guidelines, 57-month sentence imposed for his guilty-plea conviction for
illegal reentry. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
and greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Escamilla-

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 16-50269

Document: 00513826873

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/09/2017

No. 16-50269
Romero’s arguments fail to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we
apply to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d
173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337,
338 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court, which was “in a superior position to
find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a),” was aware of EscamillaRomero’s mitigating contentions, but it imposed a sentence within the
guidelines range. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. We have 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. United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 52931 (5th Cir. 2009). We have also rejected challenges based on substantive
reasonableness grounded in alleged lack of seriousness of illegal reentry.
United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008); United
States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006).
Escamilla-Romero

concedes,

his

argument

that

the

Finally, as

presumption

of

reasonableness should not be applied to his sentence because § 2L1.2 lacks an
empirical basis is foreclosed. See Duarte, 569 F.3d 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.

2