Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40731/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40731-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marlon Arturo Dubon-Valenzuela
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40731

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARLON ARTURO DUBON-VALENZUELA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1663-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Marlon Arturo Dubon-Valenzuela appeals the eighty-month withinguidelines sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry after 

deportation. Dubon-Valenzuela challenges the substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence, arguing that the court failed to consider his mitigating arguments 

that his life was threatened by gangs in El Salvador and that he was kidnapped 

in Mexico by the Gulf Cartel. He also argues that the prior aggravated assault 

 

* 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 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40731 Document: 00513475288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2016
No. 15-40731

2

conviction for which he received a 16-level enhancement overstated the 

seriousness of his criminal history because of its staleness.

Because Dubon-Valenzuela did not object post-sentencing to the 

reasonableness of his sentence, our review is for plain error. See United States 

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391–92 (5th Cir. 2007). However, even if he did object 

and we reviewed for an abuse of discretion, Dubon-Valenzuela’s argument 

fails. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Within-guidelines 

sentences are presumed to be reasonable. United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). To rebut this presumption of 

reasonableness, a defendant must show that his sentence fails to take into 

account 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 the sentencing factors. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 

(5th Cir. 2009).

The district court considered Dubon-Valenzuela’s arguments regarding 

his individual facts and circumstances in mitigation at the sentencing hearing 

and concluded that a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was 

appropriate. The court noted that Dubon-Valenzuela had an extensive 

criminal history and had returned to this country illegally shortly after his 

recent deportation. Addressing his assertions that he was kidnapped, the 

district court found that Dubon-Valenzuela was not forced into the country 

without any action on his part. 

Turning to Dubon-Valenzuela’s assertion that his 1995 aggravated 

assault conviction was stale, the “staleness of a prior conviction used in the 

proper calculation of a guidelines-range sentence does not render a sentence 

substantively unreasonable and does not destroy the presumption of 

 Case: 15-40731 Document: 00513475288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2016
No. 15-40731

3

reasonableness that attaches to such sentences.” United States v. Rodriguez, 

660 F.3d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 2011).

Dubon-Valenzuela’s argument that the district court should have 

sentenced him to a lesser sentence merely reflects his disagreement with the 

propriety of his sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th 

Cir. 2010). He has not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb the 

presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-guidelines sentence. 

See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40731 Document: 00513475288 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2016