IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50377

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO MORALES-VEGA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-717-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Morales-Vega appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty 

plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. For the first time on 

appeal, he argues that the district court committed a significant procedural 

error by relying on his bare arrest record when determining his sentence. He 

also contends that the sentence was greater than necessary to meet the goals 

of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and is therefore substantively unreasonable. He asserts 

* 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

December 15, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50377 Document: 00512870348 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2014
No. 14-50377

that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply because of the 

significant procedural error. He also maintains that the guideline provision 

double-counts his criminal history and overstates the seriousness of his 

offense, which is essentially an international trespass offense. He further 

contends that the sentence failed to reflect his personal history and 

characteristics and that his motive for returning to the United States mitigates 

the seriousness of his offense.

As Morales-Vega raises this challenge to the district court’s 

consideration of the bare arrest record for the first time on appeal, this court’s 

review is for plain error. United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th 

Cir. 2007). To satisfy plain error review, Morales-Vega must show that the

error was clear or obvious and affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has 

the discretion to correct the error if it seriously affected the fairness, integrity, 

or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

The district court should not have relied on Morales-Vega’s bare arrest 

record at sentencing. See United States v. Windless, 719 F.3d 415, 420 (5th 

Cir. 2013). However, even if the district court committed clear error by 

considering Morales-Vega’s bare arrest record, Morales-Vega has not

demonstrated that the district court’s “consideration of the arrests in 

conjunction with other permissible factors affected his substantial rights or 

seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.” 

United States v. Arce, No. 13-51211, 2014 WL 4674655, *1 (5th Cir. Sep. 22, 

2014) (citing United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483, 495 (5th Cir. 2010)). He

also has not shown that the alleged error affected the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of judicial proceedings. See United States v. Avalos-Martinez, 

700 F.3d 148, 154 (5th Cir. 2012).

2

 Case: 14-50377 Document: 00512870348 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2014
No. 14-50377

The 26-month sentence imposed for Morales-Vega’s illegal reentry 

offense was within the advisory guideline range and is therefore entitled to the 

presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 

(5th Cir. 2006). Even if he has rebutted that presumption, Morales-Vega has 

not demonstrated that the imposed sentence was substantively unreasonable 

under the standard set forth in Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). 

We have also rejected his arguments that double-counting of prior convictions 

necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable and that the Guidelines overstate 

the seriousness of illegal reentry because it is a nonviolent international 

trespass offense. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir. 

2009); United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-50377 Document: 00512870348 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/15/2014