Case ID: f-appx_547/html/0509-01.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. Agustin TEPEZANO-BEJARANO, also known as Agustin Tepezano-Bejarno, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50147
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 15, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Agustín Tepezano-Bejarano challenges, as substantively unreasonable, his 46-month within-Guidelines sentence for illegal reentry after removal. He maintains Guideline § 2L1.2 (unlawful reentry) lacks an empirical basis and double counts criminal history, his motive for returning to the United States was benign, and illegal reentry is a non-violent offense. “[A] sentence •within a properly calculated Guideline [sentencing] range is presumptively reasonable”. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006).

Regarding his claim that Guideline § 2L1.2 is not supported by empirical data, Tepezano recognizes this contention is foreclosed, but he raises it to preserve it for possible future review. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir .2009).

Our court previously has rejected the other contentions presented by Tepezano regarding the reasonableness of a sentence. See id. at 530-31 (application of unlawful-reentry Guideline causes double-counting of criminal history); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008) (benign motive for reentry rendered sentence unreasonable); United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir.2006) (illegal reentry is a mere trespass offense). The district court considered Tepezano’s contentions in mitigation of his sentence and determined a sentence at the bottom of the applicable advisory Guidelines sentencing range was appropriate. There is no basis on which to disturb the presumption of reasonableness in this case. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.