Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0320-01.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 Luis GARCIA-LIMON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50415
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 20, 2014.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Luis Garcia-Limon (Garcia) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the 60-month sentence, which represented an upward variance from the applicable guidelines range, was substantively unreasonable, urging that the district court did not appropriately account for his mitigation evidence, impermissibly gave significant weight to his prior conviction for intoxication manslaughter, and relied on an improper factor, specifically, the personal history and characteristics of the police officer killed as a result of his prior offense, as outlined in a letter submitted to the court from the Chief of the San Antonio Police Department (SAPD). Garcia thus asserts that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.

We need not decide whether Garcia properly preserved these arguments because they fail even under the more lenient abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 349 n. 4 (5th Cir.2013). The record confirms that the district court considered Garcia’s mitigation arguments, and the district court was permitted to consider his criminal history, including his intoxication manslaughter conviction, as well as the fact that he committed the instant offense within a year of completing the resulting 10-year sentence, in fashioning an appropriate sentence in the instant case. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Contrary to Garcia’s argument, the record does not show that the court relied on the letter submitted by the SAPD Chief when imposing sentence. Moreover, even if it is assumed that the district court took the letter into consideration, Garcia provides no authority for the proposition that such consideration was improper. See § 3553(a).

The district court considered the relevant facts and determined that an upward variance was warranted; the district court has the discretion to assess the importance of the various factors at sentencing, and we will not reweigh those factors or reexamine their relative import. See United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 344-45 (5th Cir.2011); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Garcia’s disagreement with the district court’s assessment of the factors does not show that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 154 (5th Cir.2011).

Accordingly, 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.