USA v. Rolando Escamilla-Romero


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

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?