Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50354/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50354-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Estupinan-Solis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50354

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR ESTUPINAN-SOLIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-753-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Estupinan-Solis (Estupinan) appeals his 53-month sentence for 

illegal reentry. He contends that his sentence, which falls within the 

applicable guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable and greater than 

necessary in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an 

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A

* 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

January 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50354 Document: 00512911664 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2015
No. 14-50354

discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range 

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

337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). As Estupinan properly concedes, his argument that 

the presumption of reasonableness should not apply in his case because 

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed by our precedent. See 

United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). 

We have rejected previously Estupinan’s argument that § 2L1.2’s doublecounting of a prior conviction in the calculation of a defendant’s offense level 

and criminal history score necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable. See 

United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Likewise, we 

have rejected substantive reasonableness challenges based on the alleged lack 

of seriousness of illegal reentry. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 

212 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 

2006). The district court, which was “in a superior position to find facts and 

judge their import under § 3553(a),” acknowledged Estupinan’s mitigating 

arguments but concluded that a sentence near the middle of the guidelines 

range was appropriate in light of his criminal history. Estupinan has failed to 

make the showing necessary to rebut the presumption of reasonableness 

afforded his sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 

2009).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50354 Document: 00512911664 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2015