Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50301/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50301-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Carlos Martinez-Valdez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50301

Summary Calendar

Consolidated with No. 15-50302

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ-VALDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-105-1

USDC No. 3:14-CR-2253-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Carlos Martinez-Valdez appeals the 13-month sentence he received 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, as well as the six-month 

sentence he received following the revocation of his supervised release. Three 

 

* 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

November 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50301 Document: 00513268830 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2015
No. 15-50301

c/w No. 15-50302

2

months of the six-month revocation sentence were ordered to be served 

consecutively to the non-revocation sentence. 

Martinez-Valdez argues that his aggregate 19-month sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to effectuate 

the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserts that his illegal reentry 

offense is essentially a nonviolent international trespass and that the illegal 

reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is problematic because it is not empirically 

based, atypically establishes an offense level based on prior criminal conduct, 

and effectively double counts the defendant’s criminal history in calculating a 

guidelines range. He also argues that his sentence fails to adequately account 

for his personal history and characteristics, including his benign reasons for 

reentry and his nonviolent criminal history. We review these newly raised 

claims for plain error only. United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th 

Cir. 2007). Martinez-Valdez concedes that plain error review applies, but he 

seeks to preserve, for possible further review, his contention that no objection 

to the reasonableness of a sentence is required. 

When, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly 

calculated guidelines range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable. United 

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

Martinez-Valdez must show “that the sentence does not account for a factor 

that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an 

irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in 

balancing sentencing factors.” Id.

As Martinez-Valdez acknowledges, his argument that the presumption 

of reasonableness should not apply because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is 

foreclosed, and he raises it only to preserve it for further review. See United 

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

 Case: 15-50301 Document: 00513268830 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2015
No. 15-50301

c/w No. 15-50302

3

likewise have previously rejected the contention that a within-guidelines 

sentence is unreasonable because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis and 

effectively double counts prior convictions. See United States v. Duarte, 569 

F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67 & 

n.7. Also, we have not been persuaded by the claim that the Sentencing 

Guidelines do not take into account the nonviolent nature of an illegal reentry 

offense. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Martinez-Valdez’s alleged benign motive for returning to this country is 

insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his withinguidelines illegal reentry sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 

F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

Insofar as Martinez-Valdez challenges the fact that part of his revocation 

sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to his non-revocation sentence, 

his challenge is unavailing. Because his six-month revocation sentence falls 

within the applicable advisory guidelines range and is consistent with U.S.S.G

§ 7B1.3(f), p.s. (mandating “[a]ny term of imprisonment imposed upon the 

revocation of . . . supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively 

to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving”), it is entitled 

to a presumption of reasonableness. See, e.g., United States v. LopezVelasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); United 

States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 2006). Martinez-Valdez has made 

no effort to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his revocation 

sentence.

Martinez-Valdez has failed to show that his sentences amount to error, 

plain or otherwise. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50301 Document: 00513268830 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/12/2015