Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50785/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50785-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wilfredo Francisco Ramirez-Figueroa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50785

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

WILFREDO FRANCISCO RAMIREZ-FIGUEROA, also known as Wilfredo 

Figueroa, also known as Ricardo Barrientos, also known as Wilfredo Ramirez, 

also known as Israel Rosas-Ramon, also known as Wilfredo Francisco 

Figueroa, also known as Wilfredo Francisco Ramirez-Figueroa, also known as 

Wilfredo Figueroa Ramirez, also known as Wilfredo Francisco FigueroaRamirez, also known as Wilfredo Figueroa-Ramirez, also known as Wilfredo 

Ramirez Figueroa,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-135

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wilfredo Francisco Ramirez-Figueroa challenges his 70-month sentence 

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United 

 

* 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

April 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50785 Document: 00513456209 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2016
No. 15-50785

2

States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Ramirez

contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than 

necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Along that line, 

he asserts the court failed to consider his reentry offense was a nonviolent 

crime, and his reason for returning was benign. Additionally, Ramirez

maintains his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness 

because the illegal reentry Guideline, § 2L1.2, is not empirically based, given 

that it double-counts a defendant’s criminal history. He notes that, at the time 

of his prior illegal-reentry conviction, he received a 12-level sentencing 

enhancement based on his prior drug offenses; however, the same convictions 

now qualify for a 16-level enhancement because of a subsequent revocation 

sentence, although the facts underlying those convictions have not changed.

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing 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 Guidelines sentencing range for use in deciding on 

the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48–51 (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); United 

States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005).

Regarding Ramirez’ substantive-unreasonableness claim, his 70-month 

sentence is within the advisory-Guidelines sentencing range; therefore, it is 

entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. E.g., United States v. Rashad, 

687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). “The presumption is rebutted only upon a 

showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive 

significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper 

 Case: 15-50785 Document: 00513456209 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2016
No. 15-50785

3

factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing 

factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

As he concedes, Ramirez’ assertion the presumption does not apply, 

based on his claim Guideline § 2L1.2 is not empirically based, is foreclosed by 

our precedent. (He raises the issue only to preserve it for possible further 

review.) E.g., United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529–31 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Additionally, our court has repeatedly rejected his assertions that: doublecounting of prior convictions necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable; and, 

the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal reentry. E.g., id. at 529–30;

United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 682–83 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Moreover, the district court examined, inter alia, Ramirez’ motive for 

reentering the United States, as well as his criminal and personal history, 

before pronouncing sentence. General disagreement with the propriety of his 

sentence and the court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to 

rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186; United 

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

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50785 Document: 00513456209 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2016