IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-51125

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR OMAR VILLA-SALINAS, also known as Salvador Rodriguez Villa, 

also known as Salvador Villa Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-1379-1

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Omar Villa-Salinas (Villa) challenges the 41-month sentence that 

was imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry in violation 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Villa argues that the district court committed procedural 

error at sentencing by inadequately explaining the reasons for its withinguidelines sentence. He further contends that his sentence is substantively 

* 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

November 4, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-51125 Document: 00512429249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2013
No. 12-51125

unreasonable because the district court failed to consider cultural assimilation 

and that the guidelines calculation overrepresented his criminal history.

This court reviews a district court’s sentencing decision for 

reasonableness, under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 50-51 (2007); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 

764 (5th Cir. 2008). “Appellate courts must first ensure that the district court 

committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or 

improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as 

mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a 

sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the 

chosen sentence - including an explanation for any deviation from the 

[g]uidelines range.” Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 764. Where the sentence 

is procedurally sound, the appellate court considers the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence under the abuse of discretion standard. Id.

Although there are questions regarding whether Villa adequately 

preserved the arguments that he raises on appeal, because Villa cannot prevail 

even under the less deferential, abuse-of-discretion standard, it is unnecessary 

for this court to determine the standard of review. See United States v. 

Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 349 n.4 (5th Cir. 2013).

The record reflects that after considering the particular facts and 

circumstances of Villa’s case, including Villa’s criminal history and the need 

for the sentence to serve as a deterrent, the district court determined that the 

guidelines-range sentence was adequate. The district court therefore did not 

commit procedural error by providing inadequate reasons for the sentence that 

it imposed. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Villa’s argument 

regarding cultural assimilation does not demonstrate that the district court 

erred, because a sentencing court is not required to accord cultural 

2

 Case: 12-51125 Document: 00512429249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2013
No. 12-51125

assimilation dispositive weight. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 

F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Also, his argument that the guidelines 

calculation did not take into account that he was only a minor player in the 

offense that formed the basis of his conviction of conspiracy to commit murder 

does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his withinguidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 

2009).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 12-51125 Document: 00512429249 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2013