United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40816

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Carlos Fuentes-Perez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:20-CR-799-1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Carlos Fuentes-Perez pled guilty, without the benefit of a plea 

agreement, to one count of illegally reentering the United States in violation 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced Fuentes-Perez to 36 months

of imprisonment, which was above the advisory sentencing guidelines range 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 4, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40816 Document: 00515848719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2021
No. 20-40816

2

of 18 to 24 months in prison. On appeal, Fuentes-Perez asserts that his 

sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court erred in 

balancing the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Although Fuentes-Perez did not specifically object to the substantive 

reasonableness of his sentence after it was imposed, he did seek a sentence 

lower than the one ultimately imposed. Erring on the side of caution, we 

analyze Fuentes-Perez’s substantive reasonableness claim as though error 

was preserved. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764–

67 (2020), on remand, 955 F.3d 519, 520 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).

This court reviews sentences, whether inside or outside the 

Guidelines, for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 

§ 3553(a) and reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

46–47, 49–51 (2007). A sentence is not unreasonable merely because a 

different sentence would also have been appropriate. Id. at 51. 

The record demonstrates that the district court assessed the facts and 

arguments of the parties and determined that a sentence within the advisory 

guidelines range was insufficient to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 

§ 3553(a). The district court further adopted the presentence report and 

considered the advisory sentencing guidelines range and the § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors, specifically noting the history and characteristics of the 

defendant and the need for the sentence to promote respect for the law and 

afford adequate deterrence from crime.

Fuentes-Perez’s arguments on appeal constitute a disagreement with 

the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors and correctness of the 

sentence imposed. This disagreement does not show error in connection 

with his sentence, nor does it show that the sentence imposed was not 

reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 

Case: 20-40816 Document: 00515848719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2021
No. 20-40816

3

342 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th 

Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Furthermore, this court does not reweigh the 

§ 3553(a) factors and reexamine their relative import, nor will it reverse the 

district court on the basis that this court could reasonably conclude that a 

different sentence may have been proper. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United 

States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 344 (5th Cir. 2011). Here, Fuentes-Perez’s 

sentence is supported by numerous § 3553(a) factors and is within the 

statutory maximum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). 

As to the extent of the variance, Fuentes-Perez’s sentence is twelve

months greater than the top of his advisory guidelines range. This court has 

upheld much greater variances. E.g., United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475–

76 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526, 531–32 

(5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433, 441–42 (5th Cir. 

2006); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 485, 492 (5th Cir. 2005). Given 

the significant deference that is due to a district court’s consideration of the 

§ 3553(a) factors, Fuentes-Perez has not demonstrated that the district court 

committed any error in imposing his above-guidelines sentence. See Gall, 

552 U.S. at 50–53. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40816 Document: 00515848719 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2021