Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: .", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Misael Figueroa OCAMPO, also known as Misael Figueroa O’Campo, also known as Misael Ocampo Figueroa, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-20563 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/09/2016
    John Richard Berry, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Misael Figueroa Ocampo, Pro Se
    Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM: .

Defendant-Appellant Misael Figueroa Ocampo appeals the 36-month below-Guidelines sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Ocampo asserts that the sentence exceeds the mean and median sentences for immigration offenses nationwide. He argues that the district court should have considered the remoteness of his prior conviction for robbery causing injury, which was used to enhance his sentence, as well as his reason for illegally entering this country.

Because Ocampo failed to object to the reasonableness of the sentence in the district court, his sentence is reviewed for plain error only. See United States v. Pettier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Ocampo fails to rebut the presumption of correctness that we accord his below-guidelines sentence and, therefore, fails to show plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 558 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 920, 193 L.Ed.2d 807 (2016); 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.