Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50636/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50636-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Luis Maldonado-Jaimes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50636

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

JOSE LUIS MALDONADO-JAIMES, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:16-CR-17-1 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Maldonado-Jaimes appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 

60 months of imprisonment imposed for his guilty plea conviction of illegal 

reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that his 

sentence is substantively unreasonable.1 Because Maldonado-Jaimes did not 

 

* 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.

1 Maldonado-Jaimes also raises two arguments foreclosed by our precedent because 

he seeks to preserve them for further appellate review: (1) the presumption of reasonableness 

should not apply to a sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because the guideline provision lacks 

an empirical basis, and (2) a failure to object to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence 

United States Court of Appeals

Fif h Circuit

FILED

December 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50636 Document: 00513810493 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 16-50636

2 

object to the reasonableness of his sentence in the district court, our review is 

limited to plain error. United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 

2007). A within-guidelines sentence is presumed to be reasonable. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 360. 

We have rejected the argument that illegal reentry is merely an 

international trespass and that its seriousness is overstated by § 2L1.2. See 

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

the Sentencing Guidelines specifically allow it, we have also rejected that it is 

impermissible to “double-count” a prior conviction in both the guidelines 

offense level and in the criminal history calculation. See, e.g., United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Maldonado-Jaimes has failed to 

overcome the applicable presumption of reasonableness or to demonstrate 

error, plain or otherwise. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 360; see Peltier, 

505 F.3d at 391-92. 

 AFFIRMED. 

 

should not be subject to plain error review. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

 Case: 16-50636 Document: 00513810493 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2016