IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20224

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO M. CAMERO-RENOBATO, also known as Amando Cortez, also

known as Armando Camero Renobato, also known as Armando Cortez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Armando M. Camero-Renobato (Camero) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry

following deportation after conviction for an aggravated felony in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court sentenced Camero to 71 months in

prison. Camero argues that the district court committed a procedural error

when it allegedly failed adequately to explain the chosen sentence. Camero also

argues thatthe sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than

necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences are

reviewed for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in § 3553(a). Gall

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 8, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 11-20224 Document: 00511752183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2012
No. 11-20224

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first examine whether the district

court committed any procedural errors, “such as . . . failing to adequately explain

the chosen sentence.” Id. In making that determination, this court reviews the

district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de

novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,

517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 

The district court did not commit procedural error with respect to the

sufficiency of its explanation for the sentence it imposed. Almost the entire

sentencing hearing was devoted to Camero’s request for a below-guidelines

sentence. After listening to Camero’s arguments, inviting and listening to the 

Government’s response, and permitting the defense to respond further, the

district court noted that a within-guidelines sentence was appropriate in light

of the § 3553(a) factors. Indeed, the district court’s statements regarding the 71-

month sentence reflect that it considered the history and characteristics of

Camero, the nature and circumstances of the offense of conviction, and the need

for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote

respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate

deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from further crimes of

the Camero. The district court’s failure to give additional reasons did not

constitute procedural error. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59

(2007). 

We clarify that our decision in United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564

F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009), which perceived procedural unreasonableness in the

inadequacy of sentencing reasons, involved not “giv[ing] any reasons for its

sentence beyond a bare recitation of the Guideline’s calculation.” Id. at 363

(emphasis added). As we quoted in Mondragon-Satiago, the district court in that

case offered only a single sentence about a Guidelines calculation, hence gave no

elaboration of sentencing reasons. Id. at 364. By contrast, the district court in

the instant case entertained lengthy comments from both parties and then

2

Case: 11-20224 Document: 00511752183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2012
No. 11-20224

elaborated its particularized explanation for a within-guidelines sentence. No

more is required.

Because there is no procedural error, we review “the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range

is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th

Cir. 2006); see also Rita, 551 U.S. at 347. 

The district court heard and considered Camero’s arguments for a belowguidelines sentence, but it rejected them, determining that a within-guidelines

sentence was appropriate in light of the Guidelines, the § 3553(a) factors, and

the policy statements. Camero’s argument requests us to re-weigh the § 3553(a)

factors. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge

their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” United

States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Even the

possibility that this court “might reasonably have concluded that a different

sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Furthermore, Camero’s sentence is presumed reasonable because it was

within the guidelines range. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554. A defendant’s

disagreement with the propriety of his sentence does not suffice to rebut the

presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. 

See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008); United

States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). Camero’s alternative

argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply because

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based is, as Camero acknowledges,foreclosed. 

See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-20224 Document: 00511752183 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2012