Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50518/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50518-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Fidencio Torres-Diaz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50518

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE FIDENCIO TORRES-DIAZ, also known as Marcos Torres, also known

as Eduardo Santos-Ramirez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-651

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Fidencio Torres-Diaz appeals the 41-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following prior removal. 

He argues that his sentence, which is at the low end of the applicable 

guidelines range, is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing objectives 

of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, he contends that the district court did not 

* 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

February 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50518 Document: 00512935490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2015
No. 14-50518

account for his minimal criminal background and the fact that he reentered 

the United States to be with his family, including his youngest daughter, who 

has a disabling disease.

Torres-Diaz did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence and, 

thus, we review for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 

391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Torres-Diaz argues that such an objection is not 

required to preserve the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for review, 

but he acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent and 

raises the issue to preserve it for further review. As Torres-Diaz also

recognizes, his assertion that the presumption of reasonableness should not 

apply because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not based on empirical data or national 

experience is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). 

With regard to Torres-Diaz’s claim that his sentence did not reflect his 

personal circumstances, the district court considered his arguments that a 

lesser sentence was warranted based on his background and family 

circumstances, but determined that a sentence within the guidelines range 

was proper. We must defer to the district court’s sentencing decision, see Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 49-50, 51-52 (2007), and Torres-Diaz’s disagreement 

with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut 

the presumption of reasonableness or show that the sentence was plainly 

erroneous. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th 

Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50518 Document: 00512935490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2015