Case ID: f-appx_357/html/0583-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Romaldo Acuna GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50431
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 15, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Judy Fulmer Madewell, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Romaldo Acuna Gomez appeals the 57-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States following deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The sentence was within the properly calculated advisory guidelines sentencing range and is thus presumed reasonable. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006).

Gomez contends that using his pri- or “crime of violence” conviction to increase his offense level and criminal history score was “effectively double-counting.” This contention fails because the relevant Guideline specifically allows this kind of counting. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.6) (Nov.2008); see United States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 560 (5th Cir.1996) (“Double counting is impermissible only where the guidelines at issue prohibit it.”).

As Gomez concedes, this court has foreclosed his argument that the presumption of reasonableness does not apply where the relevant Guideline is not empirically grounded. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 378, 175 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009). His arguments concerning his personal and criminal history merely ask us to substitute his assessment of the evidence and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors for that of the district court. This approach is contrary to the deferential review dictated by Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Gomez fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness or to show that his sentence was unreasonable. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.