Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-20248/USCOURTS-ca5-09-20248-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Osvaldo Aguilar-Aguilar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20248

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSVALDO AGUILAR-AGUILAR, also known as Osvaldo Aguilar, also known

as Santiago Solis Rodriguez, also known as Osvaldo Roberto Aguilar,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-831-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Osvaldo Aguilar-Aguilar (Aguilar) appeals the 69-month sentence imposed

by the district court following his conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that

the sentence is unreasonable because the district court declined to sentence him

below the guidelines range.

This court reviews sentences for reasonableness by engaging in a

bifurcated review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 19, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-20248 Document: 00511030803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2010
No. 09-20248

2

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). First, we must ensure

that the district court committed no significant procedural error; if the district

court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, we should then consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

Aguilar concedes that, because he did not object on procedural grounds in

the district court, this court’s review of the procedural reasonableness of his

sentence is limited to plain error; he further concedes that he cannot show

reversible plain error, and he raises the issue only to preserve it. See United

States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361-64 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130

S. Ct. 192 (2009).

Because Aguilar objected to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence

in the district court, we review for an abuse of discretion. See CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d at 764. As the sentence is within the guidelines range, a

presumption of reasonableness applies. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d

551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Although Aguilar argues that factors such as his

cultural assimilation and his criminal history warranted a downward variance,

we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to impose a

within-guidelines sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51-52; see also United States

v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-20248 Document: 00511030803 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2010