Case ID: f-appx_558/html/0385-01.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. Rosalino SALGADO-SILVER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50326
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 6, 2014.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Jacques Lawrence De La Mota, De La Mota & Company, Limited, Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DeMOSS, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rosalino Salgado-Silver (Salgado) appeals the 85-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation. The sentence was within the properly calculated guideline range; it is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006).

Salgado says that his sentence is too severe because illegal reentry is not violent and because his convictions were unreasonably double counted by being used to increase both his offense level and his criminal history score. As he concedes, his double-counting argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 & n. 12 (5th Cir.2009). And his mere disagreement with the sentence does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir.2010). Salgado merely asks this court to substitute his assessment of the sentencing factors for the district court’s assessment, which is contrary to the deferential review dictated by Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Salgado fails to show that his sentence was unreasonable or an abuse of discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 46, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.