Case ID: f-appx_326/html/0877-01.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. Rafael Ernesto CORVALAN-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-51031
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 17, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rafael Ernesto Corvalan-Herrera (Cor-valan) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release.

Corvalan argues that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not supported by empirical evidence. In appropriate cases, district courts certainly may disagree with the Guidelines for policy reasons and may adjust a sentence accordingly. But if they do not, we will not second-guess their decisions under a more lenient standard simply because the particular Guideline is not empirically-based. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir.2009). Accordingly, Corvalan’s argument is unavailing.

Corvalan contends that the district court committed procedural error when it failed to give reasons for imposing his within-guidelines sentence. He also contends that, notwithstanding the presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence, his sentence of imprisonment is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and, therefore, is substantively unreasonable. Regardless whether the district court’s reasons for sentencing were sufficient, Corvalan has not shown that his substantial rights were affected, and thus he has not shown that the district court plainly erred by failing to give sufficient reasons for his sentence. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65. Corvalan also has not shown that the district court committed plain error by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. See id. at 361; United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008).

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.