Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51336/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51336-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Hugo Lee-Gutierrez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51336

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUGO LEE-GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-1713-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Hugo Lee-Gutierrez (Lee) appeals the 21-month, bottom-of-theguidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found 

unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. His challenge 

to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is reviewed for plain error. 

See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 2007).

 

* 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

September 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51336 Document: 00513178541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2015
No. 14-51336

2

Lee contends that his sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the 

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because his illegal reentry offense was 

essentially an international trespass and the illegal entry Guideline, U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2, is problematic because it is not empirically based and results in a 

double counting of his criminal history. Additionally, he asserts that the 

sentence is greater than necessary to promote respect for the law and that it 

fails to adequately account for his personal history and characteristics.

A sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is 

presumptively reasonable. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 

2009). Lee contends that the presumption should not be applied but concedes 

the issue is foreclosed and raises it only for possible further review. See United 

States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2009).

This court has rejected challenges to the substantive reasonableness of 

a sentence based on the same international-trespass and double-counting 

arguments raised in this appeal. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 

204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the record does not reflect that the sentence 

fails to “account for a factor that should receive significant weight, . . . gives 

significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or . . . represents a clear 

error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.

Lee’s dissatisfaction with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. 

See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-51336 Document: 00513178541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2015