Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50274/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Norberto Morales-Chavez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50274

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NORBERTO MORALES-CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-37

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Norberto Morales-Chavez (Morales) appeals the 12-month withinguidelines consecutive sentence imposed by the district court following its

revocation of his prior three-year term of supervised release. Morales argues 

that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than 

necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically,

he contends that the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50274 Document: 00513335318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2016
No. 15-50274

2

Guidelines lack an empirical basis, overstate the seriousness of his supervised 

release violation, fail to provide just punishment, and undermine respect for 

the law. Morales further argues that his sentence exceeds what is necessary 

to punish him for his breach of trust. Finally, he asserts that his sentence fails 

to reflect his personal circumstances, namely, his age, family background, 

employment history, mitigating circumstances surrounding his previous 

kidnapping conviction, and his benign motive for returning to the United 

States.

Although Morales contends that revocation sentences should be 

reviewed for reasonableness pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 

(2005), this court generally reviews challenges to revocation sentences under 

the plainly unreasonable standard, United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 

(5th Cir. 2011). Because Morales’s revocation sentence is within the applicable 

guidelines range established by the policy statements and consistent with the 

policy statements’ advice regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences, it 

is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. LopezVelasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 

468, 471 (5th Cir. 2006).

 Morales’s assertion that consecutive revocation sentences should not be 

afforded a presumption of reasonableness because the policy statements lack 

an empirical basis is foreclosed. See id.; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 

564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009). Morales’s remaining challenges to his 

revocation sentence are nothing more than a disagreement with the policy 

statements and the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which is 

insufficient to overcome the presumption. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 

F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th 

 Case: 15-50274 Document: 00513335318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2016
No. 15-50274

3

Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Morales has failed to show that his revocation 

sentence is plainly unreasonable. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50274 Document: 00513335318 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2016