IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F OR 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. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Nov em ber 6, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk Case: 13-50112 Document: 00512431528 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2013No. 13-50112 c/w No. 13-50116 PER CURIAM: * Jorge Camacho Olivas pleaded guilty to illegal r eentry after having been removed previously, in v iolation of 8 U.S.C. § 1 326. T he district court s entenced h i m w ithin the advisory guidelines range to 46 months of imprisonment. T h e district cou r t a lso revoked Camacho Olivas’s t erm of supervised r elease on a prior conviction a nd imposed a concurrent sentence of six months. C amacho Olivas now appeals. On appeal, Camacho Olivas c ontends that his within-guidelines s entence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary t o 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 o ffense because the Sentencing Guideline u sed t o compute his offense level, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, gives t o o much weight to his prior c onvictions, resulting in double counting. He also asserts that the guidelines range f a i l s t o take into account the seriousness of the offense, arguing that the offense was not violent and t hat it was, at most, an inter n a t i o nal trespass. Finally, Camacho Olivas asserts that the guidelines range failed t o take i n to a c c ount his reason for reentry. Although Cama c h o Olivas argued f or 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 v a r i a n c e . The Government argues that review should be for plain error. This court need not det e r m i n e w h e t h e r p l a i n e r r o r r e vi ew is a ppropriate, however, because C amacho Olivas’s arguments fail e ven under the abuse o f discretion standard of review. See United States v. Rodriguez , 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. 2 Case: 13-50112 Document: 00512431528 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2013No. 13-50112 c/w No. 13-50116 The substantive r easonableness o f a sentence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United Stat e s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Because Camacho Olivas’s sentence was within the advi s o r y guidelines range, his sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United S tates v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 1 Camacho Olivas’s arg u m e nt that the seriousness o f his offense is overstated because § 2L1.2 double counts his criminal history has been rejected. See United S tates v . Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). S imilarly, we have not been persuaded by the contention that a w ithin-guidelines s e n tence failed to account for the nonviolen t nature of an illegal reentry offense. See United States v. Aguirre-Villa , 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). T h e district court listened to Camacho Olivas’s arguments for a le s s e r sentence but f

o und that a sentence within the guidelines range was appropriate. His contentions regarding his motive for reentry do not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See U nited States v. Gomez-Herrera , 5 2 3 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, Camacho Olivas h as not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb the presumption of reasonableness applicable to h is sentence. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Finally, C amacho Oliva s raises n o claims of error with respect to the revocation proceeding or the r evocation sentence. Thus, he has abandoned any issues on appeal regarding the revocation judgment. See Unit e d S t a tes v. Munoz-Hernandez , 285 F. App’x 156, 156-57 ( 5th C i r. 2008) ( per curiam) (unpublished). Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

1 Cam acho O livas argues that the p res um ption of reas onablenes s s hould not ap p ly to s entences calculated und er § 2L1. 2 becaus e the Guid eline lack s an em pirical bas is and res ults in double counting. H e correctly conced es that his argum ent is foreclos ed by Uni ted Sta tes v . M ondra gon- Sa nti a

go , 564 F. 3d 357 ( 5th Cir. 2009) , and he rais es the argum ent to p r e s e r v e it f or p os s ible further review

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