Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50046/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50046-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Braulio Luna-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50046

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRAULIO LUNA-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-500

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

PER CURIAM:*

Braulio Luna-Hernandez appeals the 41-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following prior removal. 

He argues that his sentence, which is at the low end of the applicable 

guidelines range, is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing objectives 

of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Luna-Hernandez contests the application of U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2, the illegal reentry guideline, on the basis that it is not empirically 

 

* 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

October 1, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50046 Document: 00513215453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2015
No. 15-50046

2

based, double counts prior convictions, and does not account for the nonviolent 

nature of his offense, which he asserts is an “international trespass.” He also 

contends that the district court did not account for his personal circumstances, 

specifically that he reentered the United States to find work to support his 

family, that this was his first immigration offense, and that this was the first 

time he returned to the United States since his deportation in 2008. 

Luna-Hernandez did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence 

and, thus, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 

389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Luna-Hernandez acknowledges that we apply 

plain error review when a defendant fails to object to the reasonableness of the 

sentence imposed in the district court; however, he seeks to preserve this issue 

for further review.

As Luna-Hernandez recognizes, his assertion that the presumption of 

reasonableness should not apply because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is 

foreclosed, and he raises it to preserve it for further review. See United States 

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

have rejected his contention that a within-guidelines sentence is unreasonable 

because § 2L1.2 effectively double counts prior convictions. United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2009). Also, we have not been persuaded 

by the claim that the Sentencing Guidelines do not take into account the 

nonviolent nature of an illegal reentry offense. See United States v. AguirreVilla, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006).

With regard to Luna-Hernandez’s claim that his sentence did not reflect 

his personal history and circumstances, the district court considered his 

arguments that a lesser sentence was warranted on those grounds and 

determined that a sentence within the guidelines range was proper. We will 

give “great deference” to a properly calculated within-guidelines sentence, see 

 Case: 15-50046 Document: 00513215453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2015
No. 15-50046

3

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005), and LunaHernandez has not demonstrated that the district court’s presumptively 

reasonable choice of sentence was erroneous. See United States v. Cooks, 589 

F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). His assertions on appeal are insufficient to rebut 

the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 

F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-50046 Document: 00513215453 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/01/2015