Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50014/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Miguel Rodriguez-Licea
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50014

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ-LICEA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-521-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Miguel Rodriguez-Licea appeals his 70-month within-guidelinesrange sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following removal. 

Rodriguez-Licea argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the sentence was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserts that a presumption of reasonableness should not 

be applied to his within-guidelines-range sentence because the Guideline on 

 

* 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

September 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50014 Document: 00513188204 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2015
No. 15-50014

2

which it was based, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based, but he 

acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed. He asserts that his guidelines 

range was greater than necessary because § 2L1.2 double counted his prior 

convictions and because his offense was a mere trespass. He maintains that 

the sentence failed to reflect his personal history and characteristics because 

he and his mother are both ill and because he wishes to return to Mexico where 

work opportunities are available to him.

A discretionary sentence imposed within the advisory guidelines range 

is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 

337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). As Rodriguez-Licea acknowledges, his assertion that 

we should not apply a presumption of reasonableness because § 2L1.2 is not 

empirically based is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-

31 (5th Cir. 2009).

The district court weighed the sentencing factors, rejected RodriguezLicea’s personal arguments, and imposed a within-guidelines-range sentence 

based primarily on Rodriguez-Licea’s criminal history. The internationaltrespass and double-counting-of-prior-convictions arguments that RodriguezLicea raises have both been previously rejected. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-

31; United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). As 

Rodriguez-Licea was sentenced within the guidelines range, the sentence is 

entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, and Rodriguez-Licea has not 

shown sufficient reason for us to disturb that presumption. See United States 

v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50014 Document: 00513188204 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2015