Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51058/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joaquin Garduno-Castillo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51058

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOAQUIN GARDUNO-CASTILLO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-880-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joaquin Garduno-Castillo appeals the sentence imposed for his guilty 

plea conviction of illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326. He contends that the 24-month within-guidelines sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the 

sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). According to GardunoCastillo, the guidelines range was too high to fulfill § 3553(a)’s goals because 

* 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

April 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-51058 Document: 00513015950 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2015
No. 14-51058

U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and effectively 

double counts a criminal record. He also urges that the guidelines range 

overstated the seriousness of his non-violent reentry offense and failed to 

account for his personal history and characteristics. He specifically cites his 

arrival in the United States at the age of 19, the 17 years he spent working for 

the same landscaping company, his close relationship with his wife and four 

children, who are United States citizens and live in Illinois, and his desire to 

reunite with and support them.

We consider “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). When, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly 

calculated guidelines range, we “give great deference to that sentence and will 

infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth 

in the Guidelines in light of the sentencing considerations set out in § 3553(a).” 

United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A discretionary sentence 

imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively 

reasonable.” Id.

In reliance on Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109-10 (2007), 

and for purposes of preserving the issue for possible further review, GardunoCastillo argues that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply 

because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis. As Garduno-Castillo concedes, his 

argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th 

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

Cir. 2009). We have also rejected arguments that double-counting necessarily 

renders a sentence unreasonable, see Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31, and that the 

Guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal reentry because it is only a 

2

Case: 14-51058 Document: 00513015950 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2015
No. 14-51058

non-violent international-trespass offense, see United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 

460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006).

The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and GardunoCastillo’s arguments for leniency and concluded that a sentence within the 

guidelines range was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the 

goals in § 3553(a). Garduno-Castillo’s assertions that § 2L1.2’s lack of an 

empirical basis, the double-counting, the non-violent nature of his offense, his 

employment history, his close ties to his wife and children, and his motive for 

reentering justified a lower sentence are insufficient to rebut the presumption 

of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 

(5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, he has failed to show that the within-guidelines 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-51058 Document: 00513015950 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2015