Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50690/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50690-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Luis Perez-Perez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50690

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS PEREZ-PEREZ,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-1370-1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Perez-Perez challenges his 27-month sentence, imposed for his 

conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326. The sentence falls within the advisory sentencing range based on the 

Sentencing Guidelines. 

Perez contests the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, claiming

it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. 

* 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 3, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50690 Document: 00512955335 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2015
No. 14-50690

§ 3553(a). Along that line, he claims the court: failed to account for his 

personal circumstances and those for his offense, maintaining he returned to 

the United States to earn income for his family in Mexico; and erred in 

applying Guideline § 2L1.2 (illegal-reentry Guideline) because it double-counts 

his prior conviction, and fails to account for the nonviolent nature of his 

offense, which, he classes as merely an “international trespass.”

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly 

preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly 

calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the 

sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that 

respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines 

is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States 

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

Although Perez challenges the application of the presumption of 

reasonableness as applied to his within-Guidelines sentence under § 2L1.2, he 

acknowledges the issue is foreclosed and raises it only to preserve it for possible 

future review. E.g., United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–

367 (5th Cir. 2009). Our court has likewise rejected his “double-counting” 

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

“international trespass” claim, United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 

212 (5th Cir. 2008).

After considering the reasons Perez advanced for a sentence below the 

advisory Guidelines sentencing range, the court found a sentence within that 

range was appropriate. His contentions amount to a disagreement with the 

court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and, therefore, do not 

2

Case: 14-50690 Document: 00512955335 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2015
No. 14-50690

rebut the presumption of reasonableness. E.g., United States v. Cooks, 589 

F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-50690 Document: 00512955335 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2015