### 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 r epresented 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 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 June 20, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50415 Document: 00512671713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2014No. 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 Anto nio 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 l enient 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, Gar cia 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 i mportance of the various factors at sentencing, and we wi ll not reweigh those factors or reexamine their relative import. See United States v. McElwee , 64 6 F.3d 328, 344

- 45 (5th Cir. 2011); Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. Garcia ’s disagree ment 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: 06/20/2014No. 13

- 50415 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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