IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40676

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO CARRILLO-TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-164-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 2013, Pedro Carrillo-Torres pleaded guilty to possession of counterfeit 

access devices and was sentenced to 108 months of imprisonment. He appealed 

his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in imposing a six-level 

upward adjustment for an offense involving more than 250 victims. United 

States v. Cardenas, 598 F. App’x 264, 265 (5th Cir. 2015). This court agreed, 

vacating Carrillo-Torres’s sentence and remanding the case for resentencing. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 14, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40676 Document: 00513423148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2016
No. 15-40676

2

Id. at 270. On remand, the district court again imposed a sentence of 108 

months of imprisonment. Carrillo-Torres appeals the sentence imposed, 

arguing that it is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

This court reviews sentences for reasonableness by engaging in a 

bifurcated review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). An 

appellate court must first ensure that the sentencing court committed no 

significant procedural error, including improperly calculating the guidelines 

range and failing to adequately explain the reasons for the chosen sentence, 

including an explanation for any variance from the advisory guidelines range. 

Id. at 51. In evaluating whether a district court committed a procedural error 

in the sentencing determination, this court employs a de novo standard of 

review. United States v. Garcia Mendoza, 587 F.3d 682, 688 (5th Cir. 2009). 

In reviewing a non-guidelines sentence for substantive reasonableness, we 

“consider the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance 

from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th 

Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

We conclude that the sentence is reasonable under the circumstances. 

The record in this case reflects that the district court did not fail to account for 

a factor that should have received significant weight, give weight to any 

improper factor, or clearly err in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See

United States v. Chandler, 732 F.3d 434, 437 (5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, we 

defer to the district court’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors, on the 

whole, justify the extent of the upward variance imposed in this case. See 

United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 551 (5th Cir. 2012). Finally, given 

that the court heard the parties’ arguments, permitted Carrillo-Torres and his 

counsel to present mitigating evidence, and articulated its reasons for the 

upward variance based on the § 3553(a) factors, the district court was not 

 Case: 15-40676 Document: 00513423148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2016
No. 15-40676

3

required to offer additional explanation for the sentence. See United States v. 

Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,

519 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40676 Document: 00513423148 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/14/2016