IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40166

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL ARISTIGUES ARANA-RIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-743-1

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joel Aristigues Arana-Rivera appeals his 42-month sentence for illegally 

reentering the United States after being deported. Citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 

the district court imposed an upward variance of 15 months above the advisory 

guideline maximum to protect the public and to deter future criminal conduct. 

The court based the variance on the seriousness of Arana-Rivera’s prior 

 

* 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

October 16, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40166 Document: 00514197026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2017
No. 17-40166

2

Virginia convictions for aggravated malicious wounding, robbery, and burglary 

with a deadly weapon. 

All sentences are reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007); Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). Arana-Rivera does not allege any 

procedural error, but contends only that the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Accordingly, we consider whether the 

sentence “(1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant 

weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or 

(3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” 

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

marks and citation omitted). Still, we “give due deference to the district court’s 

decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the 

variance,” and reversal is not warranted even if we “might reasonably have 

concluded that a different sentence was appropriate.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

Arana-Rivera asserts that the district court did not give adequate weight 

to his youth at the time of the prior offenses. The court was aware of AranaRivera’s youth but reasonably concluded that he had “committed a pretty adult 

crime.” The court also heard and rejected an account of the criminal activity, 

in which defense counsel suggested that Arana-Rivera was little more than a 

guilty bystander. 

Although Arana-Rivera denies asking us to reweigh the sentencing 

factors, he is necessarily asking us to substitute his assessment of those factors 

for the district court’s assessment, which is contrary to the deferential review 

dictated by Gall. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Further, the degree of deviation 

was comparable to or less than other above-guideline sentences we have 

 Case: 17-40166 Document: 00514197026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2017
No. 17-40166

3

affirmed. See United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526, 531-32 (5th 

Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). 

In light of the deference due to the sentencing court, the sentence is not 

substantively unreasonable, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. See Gall, 552 

U.S. at 51. 

 Case: 17-40166 Document: 00514197026 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/16/2017