Case ID: f-appx_334/html/0702-01.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. Victor VALENZUELA-GUERRERO, also known as Victor Valenzuela, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-51057
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 29, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Victor Valenzuela-Guerrero appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. Valenzuela argues that his guidelines sentence should not be presumed reasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is flawed under Kimbrough v. United States because it is not empirically-based. He also argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the Guidelines account for his pri- or conviction both to increase his offense level and to calculate his criminal history score.

We have rejected Valenzuela’s first argument in United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, holding that Kimbrough does not address the appellate presumption of reasonableness, instead reminding that it is within the discretion of the district court “to consider the policy decisions behind the Guidelines, including the presence or absence of empirical data, as part of their § 3553(a) analysis.” As in Mondragon-Santiago, we decline to second guess the district court’s decision simply because a Guideline may not be empirically-based.

Valenzuela’s second argument that the Guidelines double counted his prior conviction is also unavailing. The Guidelines do not prohibit double counting. And we have approved of double counting under similar circumstances. Accordingly, Valenzuela has not shown that the district court erroneously calculated the guideline range of imprisonment.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
     
      
      . 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007).
     
      
      . 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.2009).
     
      
      . Id. at 366.
     
      
      . U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment 6 ("A conviction taken into account under subsection (b)(1) is not excluded from consideration of whether that conviction receives criminal history points pursuant to Chapter Four, Pan A (Criminal History).").
     
      
      . U.S. v. Hawkins, 69 F.3d 11, 13-15 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 "the Guidelines permit consideration of [the defendant's felony conviction in calculating both his offense level and his criminal history.").