Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20529/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20529-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abdiel Plancarte-Frutis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20529

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ABDIEL PLANCARTE-FRUTIS, also known as Adbiel Plancarte, also known 

as Adbiel Frutis Plancarte,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-32-1

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Abdiel Plancarte-Frutis appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United States 

following removal subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. 

Plancarte-Frutis argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because it is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. 

* 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 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-20529 Document: 00513572015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2016
No. 15-20529

§ 3553(a). He maintains that his within-guidelines range sentence should not 

be considered presumptively reasonable because the Guideline under which he 

was sentenced, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based, but he acknowledges 

that this argument is foreclosed. He asserts that his guidelines range was 

greater than necessary because § 2L1.2 double counted his prior conviction as 

that conviction was responsible for a 16-level increase and all five of his 

criminal history points. He contends that the sentence failed to account for his 

personal history and characteristics because it did not reflect his strong ties to 

the United States and the motive for his offense. 

A discretionary sentence imposed within the advisory guidelines range 

is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 

337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). As Plancarte-Frutis acknowledges, his assertion that 

we should not apply a presumption of reasonableness because § 2L1.2 is not 

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

31 (5th Cir. 2009).

The district court weighed the sentencing factors, rejected PlancarteFrutis’s request for a downward variance, and imposed a within-guidelines 

range sentence primarily based on Plancarte-Frutis’s criminal offenses. The 

double counting argument that Plancarte-Frutis raises has been previously 

rejected. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31. As Plancarte-Frutis was sentenced 

within the guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of 

reasonableness, and Plancarte-Frutis has not shown sufficient reason for us to 

disturb that presumption. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 

565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 15-20529 Document: 00513572015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2016