Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40651/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40651-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Osvaldo Jurado-Molina
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40651

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN OSVALDO JURADO-MOLINA, also known as Anastacio TorresBanda,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1729-1

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Osvaldo Jurado-Molina appeals the 77-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that his 

sentence, which is within the applicable guidelines range of imprisonment, is 

substantively unreasonable. Jurado-Molina maintains that the district court 

placed undue weight on the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public 

* 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

April 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40651 Document: 00513009469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2015
No. 14-40651

from further crimes committed by him. We need not decide whether JuradoMolina properly preserved an objection to the substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence because his argument fails even under an abuse-of-discretion 

standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

The record reflects that the district court’s sentencing decision was based 

on an individualized assessment of the facts in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). The district 

court’s determination of the proper sentence is entitled to deference, and we 

may not reweigh the § 3553(a) factors or reverse a sentence because we might 

reasonably conclude that a different sentence is appropriate. Id. at 51-52. 

Jurado-Molina’s assertion that the district court should have given less weight 

to the need to protect the public from further crimes committed by him reflects 

his disagreement with the propriety of his sentence, which does not justify 

reversal. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). He has 

set forth no other reason for us to disturb the presumption of reasonableness 

that applies to his sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-40651 Document: 00513009469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2015