Case ID: f-appx_509/html/0297-01.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. Jose Dolores RAMIREZ-MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30298
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 25, 2013.
    Robert Benjamin Weir, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carol Loupe Michel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robin Elise Sehulberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Valerie Welz Jusselin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Dolores Ramirez-Maldonado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of a removed alien. He was sentenced to 84 months in prison, above the advisory range of 46 to 57 months. The district court justified the sentence as a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) or a departure from the Guidelines.

Ramirez-Maldonado argues that his 84-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because his convictions for aggravated robbery and murder were used to calculate both his offense level and criminal history. With respect to his specific double-counting argument, Ramirez-Maldonado has not shown any error, as courts may consider factors already accounted for by the Guidelines in determining a sentence outside the recommended range. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349-50 (5th Cir.2008). We defer to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors justify the extent of the upward variance. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Ramirez-Maldonado’s arguments amount to a mere disagreement with the district court and do not warrant reversal. See id.

The judgment of the district court 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         Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.