IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50710

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE GUADALUPE GURROLA-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-1402

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Guadalupe Gurrola-Perez appeals the 80-month within-guidelines 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gurrola-Perez challenges the reasonableness of 

his sentence, arguing that it is greater than necessary to achieve the 

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, Gurrola-Perez contends 

that his within-guidelines sentence should not be afforded a presumption of

* 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 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50710 Document: 00512991838 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-50710

reasonableness because the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, lacks 

an empirical basis and effectively double counts his criminal history by using 

prior offenses to increase both his criminal history and offense levels; that 

because his offense was equivalent to an international trespass, the sentence 

overstates the seriousness of his offense, fails to provide just punishment for 

that offense, and undermines respect for the law; and that the sentence is 

greater than necessary to provide adequate deterrence and fails to account for 

his personal history and circumstances. 

We review for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). Because the sentence was within the correctly calculated guidelines 

range, it is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 

551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Gurrola-Perez concedes that his empirical basis 

challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States 

v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). This court has also rejected 

the argument that a sentence imposed pursuant to § 2L1.2 is greater than 

necessary to meet the § 3553(a) goals as a result of any double counting 

inherent in the Guideline, see id., as well as the argument that illegal reentry 

is merely an international trespass offense, see United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 

513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

As to Gurrola-Perez’s arguments that his sentence was greater than 

necessary to provide adequate deterrence and that his sentence fails to account 

for his personal history and circumstances, the record reflects that GurrolaPerez was given an opportunity to argue mitigating factors at sentencing and 

that the district court concluded, after consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, 

that a sentence at the bottom end of the advisory guidelines range was 

appropriate. Gurrola-Perez had an extensive criminal history, including three

illegal entry convictions. Gurrola-Perez also used a number of different 

2

 Case: 14-50710 Document: 00512991838 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-50710

aliases, Social Security numbers, and birthdates. Given the above, GurrolaPerez fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his 

within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th

Cir. 2009); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 

2008).

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-50710 Document: 00512991838 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2015