Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50383/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50383-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Sierra-Jaimes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50382

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

ALFREDO SIERRA-JAIMES, Also Known as Aliredo Sierra, 

Also Known as Alfredo Jaimes Serra, Also Known as Alfredo Serra Jaimes,

Also Known as Alfredo J. Sierra, Also Known as Alfredo Sierra,

Defendant–Appellant.

* * * * *

No. 15-50383

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

ALFREDO SIERRA-JAIMES,

Defendant–Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50383 Document: 00513316309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
No. 15-50382

No. 15-50383

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 1:11-CR-31-1

No. 1:15-CR-37-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Sierra-Jaimes pleaded guilty of illegal reentry and received a 

within-guidelines sentence of 70 months of imprisonment and a three-year 

term of supervised release. In addition, his supervised-release term for a previous illegal-reentry conviction was revoked, and he received a withinguidelines sentence of 18 months of imprisonment to be served consecutively. 

Sierra-Jaimes has timely appealed both judgments, and the cases are consolidated on appeal. Because Sierra-Jaimes appeals only his sentence imposed 

for illegal reentry, he has waived any challenge to the revocation and his 

revocation sentence. See Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 426 n.24 (5th Cir. 

2011).

Sierra-Jaimes contends that his sentence is longer than necessary to 

meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) and is thus substantively unreasonable. He urges that the sentence is too long and not entitled to the presumption

of reasonableness because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, the illegal-reentry guideline, lacks 

an empirical basis and gives too much weight to prior convictions rather than 

to the offense conduct, effectively double-counting the prior convictions. 

 

* 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.

 Case: 15-50383 Document: 00513316309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
No. 15-50382

No. 15-50383

3

Sierra-Jaimes also maintains that the sentence fails to reflect his reasons for 

returning to the United States, which he contends mitigate the seriousness of 

the offense, and he suggests that a 54-month sentence would have served the

goals of § 3553(a).

This court assesses the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an 

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district 

court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts of the case 

in light of § 3553(a) and impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary, to comply with the goals of § 3553(a)(2). Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50. 

“A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines 

range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 

F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008).

As Sierra-Jaimes recognizes, his argument that we should not apply the 

reasonableness presumption because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed by United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 

2009), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further appeal. We have also 

rejected an argument that the guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal 

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

and that § 2L1.2 effectively double counts a prior conviction, United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009). Insofar as he is arguing that the 

16-level increase pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) results in a sentence that is 

unjust, Sierra-Jaimes has not identified any authority to overturn the presumption of reasonableness that applies to his within-guidelines sentence. See 

Duarte, 569 F.3d at 530.

The district court considered Sierra-Jaimes’s arguments, concluded that 

the applicable guidelines range was reasonable, and imposed a within-

 Case: 15-50383 Document: 00513316309 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
No. 15-50382

No. 15-50383

4

guidelines sentence. Sierra-Jaimes’s contention that the sentence does not 

reflect his personal history and characteristics does not establish that it fails 

to account for a § 3553(a) factor, “give significant weight to an irrelevant or 

improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The district 

court was in a superior position to find facts and assess their import under 

§ 3553(a), and this court will not, as Sierra-Jaimes seems to urge, reweigh the 

district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51–

52; Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. Sierra-Jaimes’s assertions are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. 

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

The judgments of sentence are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50383 Document: 00513316309 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/21/2015