Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50030/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50030-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorenzo Ramirez-Arriaga
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50030

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LORENZO RAMIREZ-ARRIAGA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-383-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lorenzo Ramirez-Arriaga appeals the 41-month, within-guidelines 

sentence he received following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. RamirezArriaga argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the 

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He specifically contends that the 

guidelines sentencing range was too severe because the district court failed to 

consider his benign reasons for returning and his mother’s serious illness. 

 

* 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

October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50030 Document: 00513725706 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 16-50030

2

Additionally, Ramirez-Arriaga asserts that his sentence is not entitled to a 

presumption of reasonableness because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2, is not empirically based, given that a defendant’s criminal history

receives such heavy weight in the calculations.

We review sentences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the 

§ 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). As he concedes, Ramirez-Arriaga’s empirical data 

argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. 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). Furthermore, Ramirez-Arriaga’s 

sentence, which is at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range, is 

presumed reasonable. See United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 

2012). His general disagreement with the propriety of his sentence and the 

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

presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. 

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

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

Ramirez-Arriaga has not demonstrated that the district court abused its 

discretion by sentencing him to a within-guidelines sentence of 41 months in 

prison. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Consequently, the judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50030 Document: 00513725706 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016