Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50615/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50615-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enoc Ramirez-Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50615

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENOC RAMIREZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-1314-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enoc Ramirez-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction for 

illegal reentry into the United States. He contends that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish 

the sentencing goals under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court sentenced 

him to 46 months of imprisonment, which corresponded to the bottom of his 

advisory guidelines range, and three years of supervised release.

* 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 28, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50615 Document: 00513023526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2015
No. 14-50615

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed under an 

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

Because Ramirez-Garcia’s sentence is within his advisory guidelines range, his 

sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 

523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Ramirez-Garcia wishes to preserve for 

further review the argument that the presumption of reasonableness should 

not apply to within-guidelines sentences calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 

because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis. As conceded by him, such an 

argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Rodriguez, 660 

F.3d 231, 232-33 (5th Cir. 2011).

Ramirez-Garcia argues that his sentence is greater than necessary 

because § 2L1.2 lacks empirical support and effectively double counts a 

defendant’s criminal history through enhancements, such as his 16-level drugtrafficking enhancement, that are based on prior convictions. He further 

contends that his sentence overstates the seriousness of his instant illegal 

reentry offense and fails to account for the fact that this offense was his first 

illegal reentry into the United States; he had a limited criminal history; he had 

a history of agricultural work and reentered the United States to earn more 

money to assist his ailing mother; and his 46-month sentence is substantially 

longer than the sentence he received for his prior drug-trafficking conviction.

We have rejected the argument that a sentence based on § 2L1.2 is 

substantively unreasonable because § 2L1.2 lacks empirical support or

effectively double counts a defendant’s criminal history. See United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Ramirez-Garcia’s remaining 

arguments concerning the § 3553(a) factors do not rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness applicable to his sentence. See Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 

565-66; United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). The 

2

Case: 14-50615 Document: 00513023526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2015
No. 14-50615

district court listened to his arguments for a lesser sentence but found that a 

46-month sentence was appropriate. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior 

position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a 

particular defendant.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 

(5th Cir. 2008). Ramirez-Garcia has not shown that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-50615 Document: 00513023526 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2015