Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11216/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11216-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Angel Chavez-Saucedo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11216

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL CHAVEZ-SAUCEDO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-143-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Angel Chavez-Saucedo pleaded guilty to being an alien who had 

illegally reentered this country. The district court varied upward from the 

applicable guidelines sentencing range and sentenced Chavez to 40 months of 

imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Chavez now 

appeals his sentence as being substantively unreasonable. He argues that the 

upward variance was based on his criminal history, which he considers to be 

 

* 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

August 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11216 Document: 00513624174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2016
No. 15-11216

2

unremarkable, and the high number of his prior removals, which he asserts is 

not extraordinary in illegal-reentry cases. He also argues that his criminal 

history and his prior removals were already taken into account in the 

calculation of his guidelines imprisonment range.

Sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines, are reviewed for 

reasonableness in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence is unreasonable if it “(1) does not 

account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives 

significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear 

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

Chandler, 732 F.3d 434, 437 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation and citations 

omitted).

The record reflects that the district court considered Chavez’s mitigating 

arguments but appropriately relied on several § 3553(a) factors in determining 

that an above-guideline sentence was warranted. Those factors included

Chavez’s criminal history and characteristics, the need to provide adequate 

deterrence to his further recidivism, and the need to protect the public from

his further crimes. The district court’s decision to vary 19 months above the 

advisory guidelines range was based on permissible factors that advanced the 

objectives set forth in § 3553(a). Further, the extent of the variance was not 

significant compared to other more substantial variances affirmed by the court. 

See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2008); United 

States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-11216 Document: 00513624174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2016