IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50929

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JONATHAN NAJERA-NAVARRETE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-1656-1

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jonathan Najera-Navarrete pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1)(2) and was sentenced to 46 months of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Najera-Navarrete 

challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that his 

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

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We review sentences for substantive 

* 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

April 3, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50929 Document: 00512992882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2015
No. 14-50929

reasonableness, in light of the § 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). A within-guidelines 

sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007). “The presumption is rebutted only upon a 

showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive 

significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper 

factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing 

factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

Najera-Navarrete contends that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically 

based and not subject to the presumption of reasonableness. He acknowledges 

that this argument has been rejected by this court in United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009), but he seeks to preserve 

the argument for further review. He also argues that the presumption of 

reasonableness does not apply because § 2L1.2 effectively double counts a 

defendant’s criminal history. This argument has been rejected in United States 

v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).

In challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, NajeraNavarrete argues that the sentence did not account for his personal history, 

his benign motive in reentering the United States, his cultural assimilation to 

this country, and his family circumstances. The district court rejected these 

arguments at sentencing. Najera-Navarrete’s disagreement with the district 

court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption 

of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. See Cooks, 

589 F.3d at 186. Najera-Navarrete has not demonstrated that the district 

court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a within-guidelines sentence 

of 46 months. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50929 Document: 00512992882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2015