Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50164/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Misael Antonio Martinez-Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50164

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MISAEL ANTONIO MARTINEZ-MORALES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-697-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Without a written plea agreement, Misael Antonio Martinez-Morales

pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported. 

The court sentenced him at the bottom of the properly calculated guideline 

range to 57 months in prison. He appeals the sentence, arguing that it is 

greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing factors 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

February 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50164 Document: 00513376050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2016
No. 15-50164

2

Typically, sentences are reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007); Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). The parties disagree about whether 

our review should be only for plain error, but the appeal fails under the usual 

standard. Under that standard, we first determine whether the district court 

committed any “significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or 

improperly calculating) the Guidelines range . . . .” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. But 

here there is no dispute as to procedural reasonableness, so we need only 

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of 

discretion. Id.

The sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumed 

to be reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Martinez-Morales argues that his sentence should not be presumed reasonable 

because the illegal entry Guidelines are not empirically based. This argument 

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

(5th Cir. 2009). He also argues that a prior aggravated felony conviction was 

unfairly counted in both his criminal history score and as a crime of violence 

in his offense level. This double-counting argument also fails. See United 

States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 560 (5th Cir. 1996). We have also found 

unpersuasive Martinez-Morales’s assertion that a lesser sentence is warranted 

because his crime was no more than an international trespass. See United 

States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

Otherwise, Martinez-Morales notes that the presumption of 

reasonableness is not binding, and he contends that the district court gave 

improper weight to his personal history and other factors. He essentially asks 

this court to substitute his assessment of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors for 

the district court’s, which is contrary to the deferential review dictated by Gall. 

 Case: 15-50164 Document: 00513376050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2016
No. 15-50164

3

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Mere disagreement with the sentence does not rebut 

the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 

398 (5th Cir. 2010).

Martinez-Morales does not show that his sentence was unreasonable or 

plainly erroneous. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 

389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50164 Document: 00513376050 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2016