Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50707/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50707-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Agustin Miramontes-Muniz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50707

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AGUSTIN MIRAMONTES-MUNIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-393

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Agustin Miramontes-Muniz appeals the sentence imposed for his guilty

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

§ 1326. He contends that the 70-month within-guidelines sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the 

sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). According to MiramontesMuniz, the guidelines range was too high to fulfill § 3553(a)’s goals because 

* 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 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50707 Document: 00512968310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2015
No. 14-50707

U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and effectively 

double counts a criminal record. He also urges that the 70-month sentence

overstated the seriousness of his non-violent reentry offense and failed to 

account for his personal history and characteristics, specifically, that he

returned to the United States because he had suffered violence in Mexico and 

because his mother, sisters, and daughter live in the United States.

We consider “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). When, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly 

calculated guidelines range, we “give great deference to that sentence” and 

“infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth 

in the Guidelines in light of the sentencing considerations set out in § 3553(a).” 

United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A discretionary sentence 

imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively 

reasonable.” Id.

In reliance on Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109-10 (2007), 

and for purposes of preserving the issue for possible further review, 

Miramontes-Muniz argues that the presumption of reasonableness should not 

apply because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis. As Miramontes-Muniz

concedes, his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 

528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). We also have rejected arguments that 

double-counting necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable, see Duarte, 569 

F.3d at 529-31, and that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal 

reentry because it is only a non-violent international-trespass offense, see 

United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006).

2

Case: 14-50707 Document: 00512968310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2015
No. 14-50707

The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and 

Miramontes-Muniz’s request for a downward variance and concluded that a 

sentence within the guidelines range was sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary, to satisfy the goals in § 3553(a). Miramontes-Muniz’s assertions 

that § 2L1.2’s lack of an empirical basis, the double-counting, the non-violent 

nature of his offense, and his motive for reentering justified a lower sentence 

are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States 

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

Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, Miramontes-Muniz

has failed to show that the within-guidelines sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-50707 Document: 00512968310 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/13/2015