Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50309/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ezequiel Garcia-Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50309

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EZEQUIEL GARCIA-GARCIA, also known as Ezequiel Chuck Garcia,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-2643-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ezequiel Garcia-Garcia (Garcia) appeals the 18-month within-guidelines 

sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Garcia challenges 

the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, urging that it is greater than 

necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He maintains 

that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply because U.S.S.G. 

* 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

January 5, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50309 Document: 00512889165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2015
No. 14-50309

§ 2L1.2 is not supported by empirical data, acknowledging that the argument 

is foreclosed by United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 

(5th Cir. 2009).

Although Garcia concedes that this court applies plain error review when 

a defendant fails to object to the reasonableness of the sentence in the district 

court, he nevertheless contends that the proper standard of review is abuse of 

discretion. Because he did not raise his challenge to the reasonableness of his 

sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States 

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

Garcia has not demonstrated any plain error in connection with his 

sentence. The district court considered his mitigation arguments, concluding 

that a sentence at the low end of the applicable guidelines range was sufficient, 

but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in 

§ 3553(a). Garcia has not shown that the district court failed to give proper 

weight to any particular § 3553(a) factor or that his sentence represents a 

“clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. 

Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent that he seeks to have 

this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, this court will not do so. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Garcia’s arguments that § 2L1.2 lacks 

an empirical basis and that he returned primarily because he has lived in the 

United States for almost all of his life are insufficient to rebut the presumption 

of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 

(5th Cir. 2008). 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50309 Document: 00512889165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2015