Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51109/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Rolando Desantiago
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51109

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

JOSE ROLANDO DESANTIAGO,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 2:14-CR-1754-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Desantiago claims the within-guidelines term of 60 months 

 

* 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

June 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51109 Document: 00513566399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2016
No. 15-51109

2

imposed on his conviction of illegal reentry was greater than necessary to meet 

the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He further avers that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not 

empirically based, that the sentence fails to account for the nonviolent nature 

of his offense, and that the guideline range does not reflect his cultural 

assimilation.

This court reviews a sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 

751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337,

338 (5th Cir. 2008).

The record reflects that the district court adequately considered the 

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360

(5th Cir. 2009). Although Desantiago contends that this court should not apply 

the presumption of reasonableness because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis, 

he concedes that that argument is foreclosed by Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

at 366. Desantiago’s theory regarding cultural assimilation is also insufficient 

to rebut the presumption. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 

807 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, we have rejected the notion that the guidelines 

overstate the seriousness of the offense of illegal reentry. See United States v. 

Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. JuarezDuarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

Because Desantiago has failed to demonstrate that the district court did 

not consider a sentencing factor that should have received significant weight,

that it gave significant weight to a factor it should have discounted, or that it

made a clear error of judgment when it balanced the relevant factors, he has 

not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Cooks, 

589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-51109 Document: 00513566399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2016