Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50292/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50292-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Carlos Aguilar-Osorto
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50292

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS AGUILAR-OSORTO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-186

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Carlos Aguilar-Osorto was convicted of illegal reentry and received 

a within-guidelines sentence of 41 months of imprisonment followed by a threeyear term of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his sentence was 

substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy 

the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As Aguilar-Osorto raised this 

 

* 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

November 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50292 Document: 00513270685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
No. 15-50292

2

objection below, our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

A sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is 

accorded a presumption of reasonableness and is rebutted only if the district 

court fails to consider a significant factor, gives weight to an irrelevant factor, 

or clearly errs in balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Cooks, 589 

F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th 

Cir. 2006). Aguilar-Osorto’s empirical basis challenge to the presumption of 

reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-

31 (5th Cir. 2009). We have rejected the argument that a sentence imposed 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is greater than necessary to meet the § 3553(a) 

goals as a result of any double counting inherent in that Guideline, see Duarte, 

569 F.3d at 529-31, as well as the argument that illegal reentry is merely an 

international trespass offense, see United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 

204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Aguilar-Osorto’s remaining arguments are nothing 

more than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) 

factors, which is insufficient to show the court abused its discretion. See United 

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

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50292 Document: 00513270685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2015