IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50415

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS GARCIA-LIMON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-564-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Garcia-Limon (Garcia) appeals the sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He 

contends that the 60-month sentence, which represented an upward variance 

from the applicable guidelines range, was substantively unreasonable, urging 

that the district court did not appropriately account for his mitigation evidence, 

impermissibly gave significant weight to his prior conviction for intoxication 

* 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

June 20, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50415 Document: 00512671713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2014
No. 13-50415

manslaughter, and relied on an improper factor, specifically, the personal 

history and characteristics of the police officer killed as a result of his prior 

offense, as outlined in a letter submitted to the court from the Chief of the San 

Antonio Police Department (SAPD). Garcia thus asserts that the district court 

committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.

We need not decide whether Garcia properly preserved these arguments 

because they fail even under the more lenient abuse-of-discretion standard. 

See United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 349 n.4 (5th Cir. 2013). The 

record confirms that the district court considered Garcia’s mitigation 

arguments, and the district court was permitted to consider his criminal 

history, including his intoxication manslaughter conviction, as well as the fact 

that he committed the instant offense within a year of completing the resulting 

10-year sentence, in fashioning an appropriate sentence in the instant case. 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Contrary to Garcia’s argument, the record does not show that the court 

relied on the letter submitted by the SAPD Chief when imposing sentence. 

Moreover, even if it is assumed that the district court took the letter into 

consideration, Garcia provides no authority for the proposition that such 

consideration was improper. See § 3553(a).

The district court considered the relevant facts and determined that an 

upward variance was warranted; the district court has the discretion to assess 

the importance of the various factors at sentencing, and we will not reweigh 

those factors or reexamine their relative import. See United States v. McElwee, 

646 F.3d 328, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2011); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). Garcia’s disagreement with the district court’s assessment of the 

factors does not show that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. See 

United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 154 (5th Cir. 2001).

2

 Case: 13-50415 Document: 00512671713 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2014
No. 13-50415

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-50415 Document: 00512671713 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/20/2014