### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50908 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee
v. OSCAR DAVID HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 203

- 1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Oscar David Hernandez Gonzalez (Hernandez) appeals the 36

- month

se ntence imposed after his guilty

- plea conviction for illegal reentry following prior deportation

. He argues that the abov e - guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that his offense of illegal reentry was, at most, an international trespass and that his offense lev el was inflated because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 effectively double counts a defendant’s

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 22, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50908 Document: 00512706584 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2014No. 13

- 50908
criminal history . He argues further that the district court gave inordinate weight to his remote, relatively minor prior offenses and failed to give sufficient weight to his p ersonal circumstances. Hernandez has not shown that his sentence w as substantively unreasonable. We h ave rejected the argument that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal reentry becaus e it is simply an international

- trespass offense. See United States v. Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). We have likewise rejected the argument that a sentence imposed pursuant to § 2L1.2 is necessarily greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of § 3553(a) due to any double countin g that is inherent in that guideline. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529

– 31 (5th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, the record reflects that the district court had an adequate basis for the sentence imposed and was guided by the § 3553(a) factors in dec iding that a n upward variance was merited. The district court made an individualized assessment and concluded that the guidelines range did not adequately take into account the § 3553(a) factors, including Hernandez’s history and characteristics, the need to promote respect for the laws of the United States, the need to provide a just punishment, and th e need to deter future crimes. Specifically, the district court determined that the guidelines range did not account for Hernandez’s extensive prior criminal history. See United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006). Hernandez has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States , 522 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Nor has he shown that the d istrict court abused its discretion with respect to the extent of the variance. See United States v. Brantley , 537 F.3d 347, 348

– 50 (5th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50908 Document: 00512706584 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2014