Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50616/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50616-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Hernandez-Medrano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50616

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS HERNANDEZ-MEDRANO, also known as Jesus Medrano-Hernandez, 

also known as Jesus Medrano,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 19-50617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS HERNANDEZ-MEDRANO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-19-1

USDC No. 4:12-CR-24-3

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50616 Document: 00515323381 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2020
No. 19-50616

c/w No. 19-50617

2

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Hernandez-Medrano challenges the sentence imposed for his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that 

the within-guidelines sentence of 66 months of imprisonment was greater than 

necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and therefore 

is substantively unreasonable. Because he has not challenged his revocation 

judgment or sentence on appeal, the revocation judgment is AFFIRMED. See 

United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010).

We review “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). Because the sentence falls within the properly calculated advisory 

guidelines range, it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United 

States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

In previous cases, we have rejected the arguments that HernandezMedrano raises on appeal. We have not been persuaded that the offense of 

illegal reentry is treated too harshly under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because it is in 

essence an international trespass. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 

F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). We have also rejected the contention that 

§ 2L1.2’s double-counting of a defendant’s criminal history necessarily renders 

a sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 

(5th Cir. 2009). Further, Hernandez-Medrano’s contention that his allegedly 

benign motives for returning to the United States warranted a lesser sentence 

is unavailing. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th 

* 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.

Case: 19-50616 Document: 00515323381 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2020
No. 19-50616

c/w No. 19-50617

3

Cir. 2008). His arguments amount to a request for this court to reweigh the 

sentencing factors, which we will not do. See United States v. Martinez, 921 

F.3d 452, 483 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 2019 WL 6257514 (U.S. Nov. 25, 

2019) (No. 19-6375).

Hernandez-Medrano has not shown that the district court failed to 

consider any significant factors, gave undue weight to any improper factors, or 

clearly erred in balancing the sentencing factors; thus, he has not rebutted the 

presumption of reasonableness. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Accordingly, the

district court’s judgment regarding his illegal-reentry conviction is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-50616 Document: 00515323381 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2020