Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50315/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50315-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abel Gerardo Huerta-Velasquez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50315

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ABEL GERARDO HUERTA-VELASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-2076-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abel Gerardo Huerta-Velasquez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following removal in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his within-guidelines sentence 

is substantively unreasonable. We review the substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

Because the district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence, it is 

 

* 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

December 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50315 Document: 00513811327 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2016
No. 16-50315

2

presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 

337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The presumption may be rebutted “only upon a 

showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive 

significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper 

factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing 

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

Huerta-Velasquez argues that the guideline for illegal reentry (1) is not 

based on empirical data; (2) effectively double counts a defendant’s criminal 

record; and (3) overstates the seriousness of his non-violent reentry offense.

This court has upheld the appellate presumption “[e]ven if the Guidelines are 

not empirically-grounded.” United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, we have previously rejected these

arguments. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009); 

United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 682–83 (5th Cir. 2006).

He also argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to reflect his 

personal history and characteristics. This argument fails to rebut the 

reasonableness presumption. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 

554, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding presumption despite argument that the 

relevant Guideline overstated the seriousness of the offense and that the 

motive for returning justified a below-guideline sentence).

The record shows that the district court considered the evidence and the 

Section 3553(a) factors, concluded that the applicable guidelines range was 

reasonable, and imposed a sentence in the middle of the range. HuertaVelasquez’s assertions fail to show that his 24-month within-guidelines 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 

339.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50315 Document: 00513811327 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2016