United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50370

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Raul Ramirez-Benavides, 

Defendant—Appellant,

consolidated with

_____________

No. 21-50385

_____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Raul Ramirez-Benavidez,

Defendant—Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50370 Document: 00516260249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 21-50370

c/w No. 21-50385

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CR-504-1

USDC No. 2:19-CR-1357-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Raul Ramirez-Benavides appeals his within-guidelines prison 

sentence of 37 months, which the district court imposed following his guilty 

plea conviction of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326. He also appeals a separate within-guidelines 14-month prison 

sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release term for 

a prior offense. The district court ordered that these sentences be served 

consecutively. Ramirez-Benavides argues that the district court failed to 

explain its reasoning for running the sentences consecutively and that the 

aggregate 51-month sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Because Ramirez-Benavides did not object in the district court to the 

lack of an explanation for the consecutive sentences, we review for plain 

error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). The record 

reveals no clear or obvious error in the district court’s explanation of its 

decision to impose these sentences consecutively because imposition of 

consecutive sentences upon revocation is authorized by statute and 

consistent with the Guidelines policy statement. See id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a);

U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s. Even assuming, however, that the district court’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 21-50370 Document: 00516260249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 21-50370

c/w No. 21-50385

3

explanation was lacking, Ramirez-Benavides has not shown that his 

substantial rights were affected because nothing in the record suggests that a 

more thorough explanation would have resulted in a different sentence. See 

Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 

365 (5th Cir. 2009).

As to his substantive reasonableness claim, Ramirez-Benavides argues 

that the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, lacks an empirical basis 

and double counts prior convictions. This court has previously rejected both 

arguments. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67; United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).

Further, Ramirez-Benavides has not rebutted the presumption of 

reasonableness on appeal that attaches to a sentence within a properly 

calculated guidelines range. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 

141 S. Ct. 827 (2020). The district court considered Ramirez-Benavides’s 

arguments in favor of a lower sentence and was in the best position to find 

facts and judge their importance. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 

F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court’s decision is entitled to 

deference. See id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50370 Document: 00516260249 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2022