Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40418/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40418-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Perez-Ortega
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40418

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALBERTO PEREZ-ORTEGA, also known as Alberto Perez-Ortego,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-1203

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alberto Perez-Ortega appeals the 36-month, non-guidelines sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following 

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the substantive 

reasonableness of his sentence on the ground that it is greater than necessary 

to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

* 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

February 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40418 Document: 00512931357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2015
No. 14-40418

Because Perez-Ortega does not argue that the district court committed 

any procedural error in imposing the sentence, we limit our review to the issue

whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When the district court has imposed a sentence that 

varies from the guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that we 

evaluate whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory 

sentencing factors” set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 

704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).

Although Perez asserts that the district court gave too much weight to 

his prior convictions and not enough weight to the fact that he had changed his 

life for the better and his benign motive for illegally reentering this country, 

the record does not reflect that the district court did not account for a factor 

that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an 

irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing 

the sentencing factors. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. Rather, the record reflects 

that the district court considered the Guidelines and policy statements, the 

sentencing factors of § 3553(a), the Presentence Report, and Perez-Ortega’s 

arguments in mitigation of his sentence. Additionally, although the 36-month 

sentence is 20 months greater than the top of the guidelines range, we have 

upheld much greater variances. See, e.g., United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 

475-76 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526, 531-

32 (5th Cir. 2008).

Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the significant 

deference that is due to a district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, 

the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-53; United 

States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the district 

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-40418 Document: 00512931357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2015