Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40723/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40723-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guadalupe De Los Santos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40723

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUADALUPE DE LOS SANTOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1556-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Guadalupe De Los Santos appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced him to 40 months in prison, which 

was above the recommended guidelines range of 10-16 months. 

De Los Santos contends that his prior drug-related convictions were not 

valid bases for a U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 upward departure and that the district court 

 

* 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

August 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40723 Document: 00513641366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2016
No. 15-40723

2

did not properly depart upward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 because the 

sentence was not based upon an underrepresentation of his criminal history. 

De Los Santos also argues that the extent of the departure was unreasonable 

because it gave too much weight to his prior drug convictions. 

We conclude that the sentence was not based upon an upward departure 

pursuant to § 4A1.3. Accordingly, De Los Santos’s arguments addressing 

§ 4A1.3 are unavailing. Moreover, while the district court’s Statement of 

Reasons states that the sentence was based upon an upward departure 

pursuant to § 5K2.0, the district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence 

indicates that the sentence was intended as an upward variance. “[W]hen 

there is a conflict between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the 

oral pronouncement controls.” United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 

(5th Cir. 2001). We therefore conclude that the sentence was a variance, not a 

§ 5K2.0 departure. See id.; see also United States v. Pullium, 204 F. App’x 451, 

452 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935 (5th Cir.

2003).

We review whether a sentence is reasonable under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In 

performing this review, we “first ensure that the district court committed no 

significant procedural error” and “then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed . . . .” Id.

De Los Santos’s criminal history is one of the factors that the district 

court could consider in imposing the non-guidelines sentence. See United 

States v. Lopez-Salas, 513 F.3d 174, 180-81 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward based upon De Los 

Santos’s prior federal and state drug convictions. See United States v. HerreraGarduno, 519 F.3d 526, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2008); Lopez-Salas, 513 F.3d at 180-

 Case: 15-40723 Document: 00513641366 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2016
No. 15-40723

3

81. Moreover, the upward variance in this case is well within the range of 

upward variances that we have upheld. See United States v. Gutierrez, 635 

F.3d 148, 155 n.34 (5th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases). The district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40723 Document: 00513641366 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2016