Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50541/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50541-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Demecio Hernandez-Guevara
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50541

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEMECIO HERNANDEZ-GUEVARA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-1313-1

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Demecio Hernandez-Guevara (Hernandez) was sentenced to a 48-month 

term of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, pursuant 

to his guilty plea to illegal reentry of a deported alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He 

challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that it is 

greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He complains 

that the Guidelines effectively double count the defendant’s criminal history in 

* 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, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50541 Document: 00512934302 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
No. 14-50541

calculating his sentencing range. Hernandez also asserts that the district 

court placed undue weight on his single prior conviction and ignored his 

personal circumstances and familial obligations when imposing the instant 

sentence.

We review Hernandez’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence for abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-

51 (2007), and apply a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to the withinguidelines sentence, see United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 

360 (5th Cir. 2009). For purposes of preserving the issue for possible further 

review, Hernandez argues that the presumption of reasonableness should not 

apply because the illegal reentry Guideline lacks an empirical basis. As 

Hernandez concedes, his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 

569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-

67.

We have rejected the argument that double and triple counting 

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

United States v. Palma-Palma, 551 F. App’x 220, 221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 

134 S.Ct. 2154 (2014). Although Hernandez asserts that the district court 

placed undue weight on his single, prior conviction and failed to consider his 

personal circumstances, he has not shown that his sentence does not account 

for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to 

an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in 

balancing sentencing factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 

(5th Cir. 2009). Mere disagreement with the propriety of his sentence or with 

the weight given to § 3553(a) factors does not suffice to rebut the presumption 

of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. See United 

2

Case: 14-50541 Document: 00512934302 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
No. 14-50541

States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). The judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-50541 Document: 00512934302 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2015