Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50409/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50409-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Gonzalez-Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50409

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-619-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Gonzalez-Gonzalez (Gonzalez) appeals his within-guidelines 

sentence of 30 months in prison following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal 

reentry. Gonzalez argues that his sentence should not be accorded the 

presumption of reasonableness applied to a within-guidelines sentence given 

that it was enhanced by a guideline lacking empirical support. He failed to 

raise this issue in the district court, resulting in review only for plain error. 

* 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 28, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50409 Document: 00513023426 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2015
No. 14-50409

See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). In 

any event, Gonzalez concedes his contention is foreclosed by precedent, and he 

raises it only to preserve it for possible further review. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Gonzalez argues next that, in light of the circumstances surrounding his 

offense and his criminal history, his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because it was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth 

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). His forfeited substantive reasonableness challenge is 

likewise reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 

391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

The district court considered Gonzalez’s request for a sentence variance, 

but it ultimately determined that a 30-month sentence was fair and 

reasonable. In doing so, the court considered the advisory guidelines range 

and the sentencing factors of § 3553(a). Gonzalez has not shown that his 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). Nor has he rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that 

attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 

390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). We affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50409 Document: 00513023426 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2015