Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50706/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50706-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Rosales-Bugarin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50706

c/w No. 14-50711

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN ROSALES-BUGARIN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:08-CR-1078-1

USDC No. 2:13-CR-481-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Rosales-Bugarin appeals the within-guidelines, 60-month prison 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He 

contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than 

necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

* 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

March 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50706 Document: 00512972684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2015
No. 14-50706

c/w No. 14-50711

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of 

discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Rosales-Bugarin 

has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his 

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

Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 

2008).

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

import under § 3553(a).” Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. The court 

acknowledged Rosales-Bugarin’s mitigating arguments but concluded that a 

within-guidelines sentence was appropriate. We have rejected the argument 

that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2’s double-counting of a prior conviction in the calculation 

of a defendant’s offense level and criminal history score necessarily renders a 

sentence unreasonable. United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 

2009). We have also rejected substantive reasonableness challenges based on 

the alleged lack of seriousness of illegal reentry. United States v. JuarezDuarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 

F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Finally, as Rosales-Bugarin concedes, also

foreclosed is his argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not 

be applied to his sentence because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis. See Duarte, 

569 F.3d at 530-31; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-

67 (5th Cir. 2009).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50706 Document: 00512972684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2015