Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50434/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50434-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Martinez-Villescas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50434

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL MARTINEZ-VILLESCAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-32

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Martinez-Villescas appeals his within-guidelines sentence 

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

that his 57-month term of imprisonment is substantively unreasonable.

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

discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A discretionary 

sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range 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

December 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50434 Document: 00513317305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2015
No. 15-50434

2

presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 

337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). As Martinez-Villescas recognizes, his argument that 

this court should not apply the reasonableness presumption because U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009). While he also contends that the 

guidelines “produced an unfair range in his particular case” in light of 

“significant mitigating facts,” it is well-settled law that the advisory guidelines 

range is a “starting point and the initial benchmark” for determining an 

appropriate sentence. Gall, 562 U.S. at 49. Whether to deviate from the 

advisory guidelines range is within the sound discretion of the district court, 

and Martinez-Villescas has not identified any authority permitting us to 

overturn the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to within-guidelines 

sentences. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009).

Martinez-Villescas also argues that the sentence does not reflect his 

personal history because, by returning to the United States, he was merely 

fleeing after his life was threatened in Mexico to the country where he had 

been raised and lived for 43 years. The record shows that Martinez-Villescas 

explained his reasons for return but that the district court determined that a 

within-guidelines sentence was appropriate due to his criminal history. By 

arguing that he should have received a below-guidelines sentence, MartinezVillescas is urging us to reweigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. However, we

defer to the district court’s assessment of the facts and their import under 

§ 3553(a), and Martinez-Villescas has failed to rebut the reasonableness 

presumption or show that his within-guidelines sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th 

Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50434 Document: 00513317305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2015