Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51159/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51159-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcos Alberto Bautista-Avelino
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51157

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCOS ALBERTO BAUTISTA-AVELINO, also known as Marcos Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

CONSOLIDATED WITH

CASE 14-51159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCOS ALBERTO BAUTISTA-AVELINO, also known as Marcos Alberto 

Gonzales, also known as Marcos Alberto Bautista-Avelmo, also known as 

Marcos Albert Bautista-Avelino, also known as Marcos Alberto Avelino, also 

known as Marcos Avelino-Bautista, also known as Marcos Alberto AvelinoBautista, also known as Marcos Bautista, also known as Marcos Alberto 

Bautista, also known as Marcos Bautista-Avelino, also known as Marcos 

Gonzales, also known as Marco Alberto Gonzalez, also known as Marco 

Gonzalez, also known as Marco A. Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51159 Document: 00513160670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
No. 14-51157

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-410-1

USDC No. 5:12-CR-480-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcos Alberto Bautista-Avelino was convicted of illegal reentry and 

sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. 

Bautista-Avelino’s supervised release imposed for a prior conviction was 

revoked, and he was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. Both sentences 

were ordered to run consecutively. Bautista-Avelino contends that the withinguidelines sentences were procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

We review Bautista-Avelino’s procedural claims for plain error since he 

failed to object on these grounds in the district court. See United States v. 

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). We review his substantive 

reasonableness challenges under the ordinary standard of review, assuming 

arguendo that he preserved these challenges. 

The district court provided an adequate explanation of the sentences. 

See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 

261. Even if the district court erred in considering an impermissible 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factor in selecting the revocation sentence, see United States v. Miller, 

634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011), the error did not affect Bautista-Avelino’s

substantial rights given that the district court considered other permissible

§ 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 2010). 

 

* 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: 14-51159 Document: 00513160670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
No. 14-51157

3

There are no reversible plain errors with respect to the procedural 

reasonableness of either sentence.

The district court was aware of Bautista-Avelino’s mitigating arguments 

but imposed consecutive sentences at the top of the guidelines ranges primarily 

on account of Bautista-Avelino’s criminal history. In light of the presumption 

of reasonableness and deference owed to the district court’s weighing of the 

§ 3553(a) factors, Bautista-Avelino has failed to demonstrate any error, plain 

or otherwise, with respect to the substantive reasonableness of his sentences. 

See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013); United States 

v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. CamposMaldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Finally, as Bautista-Avelino

concedes, his argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not be 

applied because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. See 

United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2009); MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67.

The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-51159 Document: 00513160670 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2015