Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50367/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50367-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allan Octavio Arias-Ramos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50367

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALLAN OCTAVIO ARIAS-RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-972-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Allan Octavio Arias-Ramos appeals the within-guidelines, 28-month 

sentence imposed for his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry. He contends 

that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to 

satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse 

of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Arias-Ramos’s 

* 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 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50367 Document: 00512894695 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
No. 14-50367

arguments fail to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his 

within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 

2008). The district court, who was “in a superior position to find facts and 

judge their import under § 3553(a),” acknowledged Arias-Ramos’s mitigating 

arguments but concluded that a sentence near the top of the guidelines range 

was appropriate in light of his criminal history. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 

at 339. We have rejected the argument that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2’s double-counting 

of a prior conviction in the calculation of a defendant’s offense level and 

criminal history score necessarily render a sentence unreasonable. United 

States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). We have also rejected 

substantive reasonableness challenges based on the alleged lack of seriousness 

of illegal reentry. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 

2008); United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Finally, as Arias-Ramos concedes, his argument that the presumption of 

reasonableness should not be applied to his sentence because § 2L1.2 lacks an 

empirical basis is foreclosed. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 530-31; United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50367 Document: 00512894695 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2015