Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50525/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50525-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Orlando Garcia-Arredondo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50525

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ORLANDO GARCIA-ARREDONDO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-66-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Orlando Garcia-Arredondo appeals his sentence of 57 months of 

imprisonment, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry 

into the United States after deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). 

According to Garcia-Arredondo, his sentence is substantively unreasonable, 

greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and fails to 

account for his personal history and characteristics.

 

* 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

February 17, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50525 Document: 00513880803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2017
No. 16-50525

2

We review the substantive reasonableness of Garcia-Arredondo’s

sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

The district court, which was “in a superior position to find facts and judge 

their import under § 3553(a),” was presented with Garcia-Arredondo’s

mitigating arguments but concluded that a sentence within the guidelines 

range was reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 

338 (5th Cir. 2008). Garcia-Arredondo’s disagreement with the district court’s 

decision is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his 

within guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th

Cir. 2009).

Garcia-Arredondo also argues that the illegal reentry guideline lacks an 

empirical basis and overstates the seriousness of illegal reentry offenses by 

using prior convictions to both calculate the base offense level and the criminal 

history category. We have previously rejected this “double counting” 

argument. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2009). 

As to the empirical data underlying the illegal reentry guideline, the district 

court could have reached, in its discretion and as part of its § 3553(a) analysis, 

a different decision as to the relevance of the amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2

and the underlying policy decisions. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 

564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). That the district court did not do so, after 

considering the case before it, is also insufficient to rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness accorded a within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. 

Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 566 (5th Cir. 2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50525 Document: 00513880803 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2017