Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50774/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50774-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlo Lee Reyes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50774

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLO LEE REYES, also known as El Raton, 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-527-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlo Lee Reyes was convicted, following a jury trial, of aiding and 

abetting smuggling goods from the United States and possession of a firearm 

by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced Reyes to the statutory 

maximum terms of imprisonment on each count and ordered the sentences to 

run consecutively, for a total sentence of 240 months of imprisonment and a 

three-year term of supervised release. Reyes argues that his sentence is 

 

* 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

July 7, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-50774 Document: 00513106569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015
No. 14-50774

2

substantively unreasonable because the application of the statutes of

convictions and guidelines produced an excessive sentence that effectively 

punished him twice for the same conduct, i.e. the trafficking of firearms. He 

also argues that the 240-month sentence fails to take into account his difficult 

childhood and the age of his prior conviction.

Reyes does not dispute that his 240-month sentence was imposed within 

a properly-calculated guidelines range. Thus, a presumption of reasonableness 

applies to his sentence. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th 

Cir. 2006). Reyes’s mere disagreement with the applicable statutes of 

convictions and guidelines is insufficient to demonstrate that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable. Insofar as Reyes contends that the district court 

failed to take into account his personal history and characteristics, these 

factors do not require a district court to impose a sentence lower than a 

guideline range sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th 

Cir. 2010). The district court heard defense counsel’s arguments, but 

apparently determined that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range 

would provide an “adequate . . . fair and reasonable sentence.” Reyes’s 

disagreement with the district court’s evaluation of the sentencing factors is 

not sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See Ruiz, 621 F.3d 

398.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-50774 Document: 00513106569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015