Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51214/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Salomon Bustos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51214

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SALOMON BUSTOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-460-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Salomon Bustos appeals his sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the district court overlooked or improperly discounted a number of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

Because Bustos did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence in 

the district court, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. 

 

* 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 14, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51214 Document: 00513758040 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2016
No. 15-51214

2

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391–92 (5th Cir. 2007). “[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), and a within-guidelines sentence is presumed to 

be reasonable, United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th 

Cir. 2009).

At sentencing, the district court acknowledged Bustos’s arguments 

concerning the § 3553(a) factors in his favor. Ultimately, however, the district 

court specifically applied the § 3553(a) factors in determining that Bustos’s

sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was appropriate, particularly in 

light of his criminal history, which included criminal conduct committed while 

still under state court supervision. Bustos has not shown that the district court 

failed to give proper weight to his arguments or to any particular § 3553(a) 

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

he has failed to show plain error as to the substantive reasonableness of his 

guidelines sentence. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-51214 Document: 00513758040 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2016