Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41054/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41054-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Castillo-Huerta
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41054

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO CASTILLO-HUERTA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-631-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Castillo-Huerta pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry 

following a prior deportation, and the district court sentenced him above the 

applicable guidelines range to 40 months in prison, to be followed by a threeyear term of supervised release. On appeal, Castillo-Huerta argues that the 

district court procedurally erred by failing to offer adequate reasons for its 

choice of sentence.

 

* 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 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-41054 Document: 00513077070 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2015
No. 14-41054

2

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review sentences 

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

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). We first consider whether the district 

court committed a significant procedural error, such as failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence or a deviation from the guidelines range; if the 

sentence is procedurally sound, we may then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In evaluating whether a 

district court committed a procedural error in the sentencing determination, 

we employ a de novo standard of review. United States v. Garcia Mendoza, 587 

F.3d 682, 688 (5th Cir. 2009).

Castillo-Huerta argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable 

because the district court did not give adequate reasons to explain why it 

varied to the extent it did. Our review of the record belies this assertion and 

shows that the district court chose the sentence it found most appropriate in 

light of Castillo-Huerta’s prior offenses, his numerous unprosecuted 

immigration violations, his apparent lack of respect for the law, the need for 

deterrence, and the need to protect the public. The district court’s explanation 

for the sentence imposed was proper because it was “fact-specific and 

consistent with the sentencing factors enumerated in . . . [§] 3553(a).” United 

States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). Castillo-Huerta’s reliance 

on United States v. Kirkpatrick, 589 F.3d 414, 415-16 (7th Cir. 2009), is 

misplaced because that case is materially distinguishable. Unlike Kirkpatrick, 

the district court’s reasons for imposing sentence were not conclusional and do 

not indicate that the sentence was arbitrarily chosen. Although CastilloHuerta suggests that the court should be required to explain why lesser 

variances were not adequate, similar to the process used under U.S.S.G. 

§ 4A1.3 to impose an upward departure for an underrepresented criminal 

Case: 14-41054 Document: 00513077070 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2015
No. 14-41054

3

history category, he acknowledges that the § 4A1.3 methodology does not apply 

to variances. See United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 723 (5th Cir. 

2007). Because Castillo-Huerta has shown no error in connection with his 

sentence, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-41054 Document: 00513077070 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2015