Case ID: f-appx_560/html/0419-01.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. Luis Armando TORRES-RIVERA, also known as Armando Rivera-Torres, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50427
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 14, 2014.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Luis Armando Torres-Rivera challenges his 36-month above-guideline sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction to illegal reentry following deportation. Torres contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review objections to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). When the district court has imposed a sentence that varies from the guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that we evaluate whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors” set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir.2006).

The record indicates that the district court properly considered the arguments of counsel in mitigation of sentence and the § 3553(a) factors. Contrary to Torres’s assertion, nothing in the record indicates that the district court ignored counsel’s mitigation arguments. The court specifically stated that it had taken into account the allocution of the parties, as well as the factual information contained within the presentence report. Further, the 36-month sentence reflected Torres’s history and characteristics, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to protect the public and deter future crimes. The sentence imposed was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, see United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir.2008), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir.2008). The sentence was nine months above the top of the advisory guidelines sentencing range. We have upheld variances considerably greater than the increase to Torres’s sentence. E.g., Brantley, 537 F.3d at 349-50; United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526, 531-32 (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.