IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50112

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE CAMACHO OLIVAS, also known as Jorge Hernandez Jara,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 13-50116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE CAMACHO-OLIVAS, also known as Jorge Hernandez-Jara,

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-2305-1 

USDC No. 3:11-CR-434-1

Before KING, DeMOSS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 6, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-50112 Document: 00512431528 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2013
No. 13-50112

c/w No. 13-50116

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Camacho Olivas pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after having been

removed previously, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced

him within the advisory guidelines range to 46 months of imprisonment. The

district court also revoked Camacho Olivas’s term of supervised release on a

prior conviction and imposed a concurrent sentence of six months. Camacho

Olivas now appeals.

On appeal, Camacho Olivas contends that his within-guidelines sentence

is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the

sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In support of his contention,

Camacho Olivas asserts that the guidelines range overstates the seriousness of

his offense because the Sentencing Guideline used to compute his offense level,

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, gives too much weight to his prior convictions, resulting in

double counting. He also asserts that the guidelines range fails to take into

account the seriousness of the offense, arguing that the offense was not violent

and that it was, at most, an international trespass. Finally, Camacho Olivas

asserts that the guidelines range failed to take into account his reason for

reentry.

Although Camacho Olivas argued for a downward variance, he failed to

specifically object to the reasonableness of the sentence after the sentence was

imposed. Rather, he reurged his motion for a downward variance. The

Government argues that review should be for plain error. This court need not

determinewhether plain error review is appropriate, however, because Camacho

Olivas’s arguments fail even under the abuse of discretion standard of review. 

See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

* 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.

2

 Case: 13-50112 Document: 00512431528 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2013
No. 13-50112

c/w No. 13-50116

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed under an abuse

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Because

Camacho Olivas’s sentence was within the advisory guidelines range, his

sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173,

186 (5th Cir. 2009).1

Camacho Olivas’s argument that the seriousness of his offense is

overstated because § 2L1.2 double counts his criminal history has been rejected. 

See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Similarly, we

have not been persuaded by the contention that a within-guidelines sentence

failed to account for the nonviolent nature of an illegal reentry offense. See

United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006).

The district court listened to Camacho Olivas’s arguments for a lesser

sentence but found that a sentence within the guidelines range was appropriate. 

His contentions regarding his motive for reentry do not rebut the presumption

of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66

(5th Cir. 2008). Thus, Camacho Olivas has not shown sufficient reason for this

court to disturb the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his sentence. 

See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.

Finally, Camacho Olivas raises no claims of error with respect to the

revocation proceeding or the revocation sentence. Thus, he has abandoned any

issues on appeal regarding the revocation judgment. See United States v.

Munoz-Hernandez, 285 F. App’x 156, 156-57 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)

(unpublished).

Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

1 Camacho Olivas argues that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to

sentences calculated under § 2L1.2 because the Guideline lacks an empirical basis and results

in double counting. He correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v.

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009), and he raises the argument to preserve

it for possible further review.

3

 Case: 13-50112 Document: 00512431528 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2013