Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-12-50181/USCOURTS-ca5-12-50181-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Armando Arguelles-Carballo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50181

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO ARGUELLES-CARBALLO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-795-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

For the first time on appeal, Armando Arguelles-Carballo asserts that his

87-month guidelines sentence for illegal reentry is substantively unreasonable. 

According to Arguelles-Carballo, the applicable guideline produced an

unreasonably high sentence because the guideline was not empirically based and

it double-counted his criminal history. He further asserts that his sentence

overstated the seriousness of his offense, failed to provide just punishment, and

undermined respect for the law because his illegal reentry offense was not a 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 2, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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: 12-50181 Document: 00512098127 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2013
No. 12-50181

crime of violence or dangerous to others and “was, at bottom, an international

trespass.” In addition, Arguelles-Carballo contends that the sentence fails to

account for his personal history and characteristics as a 55-year-old who moved

to the United States in 1975, worked for 30 years as a welder, married, and had

children who are United States citizens. Finally, he asserts that he reentered

the United States because it was “where he had lived most of his life” and that

his motive for returning mitigates the seriousness of the offense.

Although we ordinarily review sentences for reasonableness under an

abuse-of-discretion standard, we review here for plain error because ArguellesCarballo did not object to his sentence. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d

389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). A within-guidelines sentence is not unreasonable

because of the lack of empirical basis or any double-counting of the defendant’s

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

We also find no merit in the argument that the sentence is unreasonable because

illegal reentry is, according to Arguelles-Carballo, merely an international

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

district court here adopted the presentence report, which described ArguellesCarballo’s personal history and characteristics. The court determined that an

87-month sentence was necessary after weighing the factors in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) and emphasizing Arguelles-Carballo’s “significant criminal history,”

the nature of his past offenses, the likelihood that he would re-offend, and the

need to protect the public.

Arguelles-Carballo has not shown that his presumptively reasonable

sentence does not account for a factor that should have received significant

weight, that it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or

that it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. See

United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Because he fails to

show error, plain or otherwise, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 12-50181 Document: 00512098127 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2013