Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0323-01.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. Javier Homero REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50777
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 7, 2012.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jacques Lawrence De La Mota, De La Mota & Company, Ltd., Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Javier Homero Reyes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. He argues that 30-month below guidelines sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court did not give adequate reasons for the sentence and provided no indication that it actively weighed the grounds that he argued warranted a substantially lower sentence. Because he did not raise these arguments in the district court, he concedes that review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, Reyes’s allocution, his counsel’s arguments, the letters submitted on behalf of Reyes, and the Presentence Report. The district court stated at sentencing and in the statement of reasons that a sentence below the guideline range was appropriate based on the need to provide just punishment for the offense and based on Reyes’s history and characteristics, including that he had only one prior conviction that was used to enhance his offense level and to calculate his criminal history category. The district court’s explanation was fact-specific, was consistent with the need to promote respect for the law under § 3553(a)(2)(A), and was adequate to allow for meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 474 (5th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 997, 178 L.Ed.2d 832 (2011); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.2006). Therefore, Reyes has not shown any procedural error, plain or otherwise. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 365.

Reyes’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is merely a corollary to his procedural argument that the district court failed to provide adequate reasons for the sentence; because his procedural argument fails, his substantive argument also fails. See United States v. Rhine, 637 F.3d 525, 530 (5th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1001, 181 L.Ed.2d 743 (2012). Reyes has not shown that the district court failed to account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or clearly erred in balancing the sentencing factors. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. Therefore, he has not shown plain error concerning the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-92.

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.