Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50299/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50299-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Herrera-Mata
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50299

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE HERRERA-MATA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-408

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Herrera-Mata pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment 

and three years of supervised release. Herrera-Mata challenges the 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that his sentence is 

unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing 

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

 

* 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

November 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50299 Document: 00513270168 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
No. 15-50299

2

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). A within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a 

presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 

(2007). “The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence 

does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives 

significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear 

error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 

F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the record reveals no objection to the 

sentence other than a request for a sentence below the guidelines based on 

cultural assimilation, the plain error standard of review applies to all of his 

other arguments. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009);

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

As he concedes, Herrera-Mata’s argument that the presumption of 

reasonableness should not apply because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 lacks empirical 

support has been rejected by this court. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 

528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). His argument that his guidelines range was 

greater than necessary as a result of “double counting” his criminal history is 

unavailing. The Guidelines provide for consideration of a prior conviction for 

both criminal history and the § 2L1.2 enhancement. See § 2L1.2, comment. 

(n.6). We have rejected the argument that such double-counting necessarily 

renders a sentence unreasonable. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31. We have 

also previously rejected Herrera-Mata’s argument that the offense of illegal 

reentry is treated too harshly under § 2L1.2. See United States v. AguirreVilla, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 

F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Herrera-Mata’s argument concerning his 

cultural assimilation and his benign motive for reentry fails to rebut the

 Case: 15-50299 Document: 00513270168 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
No. 15-50299

3

presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 

554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 

807 (5th Cir. 2008).

The district court considered Herrera-Mata’s personal history and 

characteristics and the other statutory sentencing factors in § 3553(a), in 

particular Herrera-Mata’s prior conviction for aggravated kidnapping and his 

other criminal convictions, prior to imposing a sentence within the Guidelines. 

Herrera-Mata’s disagreement with 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 Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.

Herrera-Mata has not demonstrated that the district court abused its 

discretion or plainly erred by sentencing him to a within-guidelines sentence 

of 60 months. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Puckett, 556 U.S. at 134-35. The 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50299 Document: 00513270168 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2015