Case ID: f-appx_401/html/0940-01.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. Jesus Medina VASQUEZ, also known as Jesus Rolando-Morales, also known as Felix Rasso Vasquez, also known as Jesus Medina-Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50214
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 15, 2010.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jesus Medina Vasquez appeals his 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the presumption of reasonableness does not apply to his •within-guidelines sentence because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not supported by empirical data. Vasquez also argues that the sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that the sentence fails to account for the remoteness of his most serious offenses, fails to account for his lost opportunity to serve his state and federal sentences concurrently, and overstates the seriousness of his illegal reentry offense.

As Vasquez concedes, his argument that the presumption of reasonableness does not apply because § 2L1.2 is not empirically-based is foreclosed by United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 378, 175 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009), and United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338-39 (5th Cir.2008).

Vasquez’s substantive reasonableness argument is likewise unavailing. Vasquez’s arguments fail to overcome the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31. Vasquez’s argument that the mitigating factors presented for the district court’s consideration at sentencing should have been balanced differently is insufficient to disturb the presumption. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.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.