Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50225/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50225-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco J. Martinez-Medina
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50225

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO J. MARTINEZ-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-2444-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Francisco J. Martinez-Medina appeals the 57-

months, within-guidelines prison sentence he received following his guilty plea 

conviction for illegal reentry. For the first time on appeal, he challenges the 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence, insisting that it is greater than 

necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In support of 

this claim, Martinez-Medina contends that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, the illegal reentry 

* 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

January 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50225 Document: 00512895921 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2015
No. 14-50225

guideline, double counted his prior drug trafficking offense, resulting in a 

guidelines range that overstated the seriousness of his criminal history. He 

also contends that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to his 

cultural assimilation, education, employment history, and family ties; to his 

alcohol addiction; and to his assertions that a long sentence was unnecessary 

to provide adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. Finally, Martinez-Medina 

argues that a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to his withinguidelines sentence on appellate review because § 2L1.2 is not supported by 

empirical data and national experience. He correctly concedes, however, that

this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).

Our review is limited to plain error because Martinez-Medina did not 

object to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence in the district court. 

See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). MartinezMedina has not demonstrated plain error in connection with his sentence. The 

district court considered his mitigation arguments, concluded that the 

applicable guidelines range was reasonable, and imposed a sentence at the 

bottom of the range. Martinez-Medina has not shown that his sentence fails 

to account for a § 3553(a) factor, “gives significant weight to an irrelevant or 

improper factor, or [ ] represents a clear error of judgment in balancing 

sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Rather, his contentions essentially constitute a disagreement with the district 

court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. We do not, however, reweigh the §

3553(a) factors on appeal or reexamine their relative import. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Martinez-Medina’s claims are 

insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See Duarte, 569 F.3d 

2

 Case: 14-50225 Document: 00512895921 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2015
No. 14-50225

at 529-31; United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 

2008). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

3

 Case: 14-50225 Document: 00512895921 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2015