### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-50017 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN CHAVEZ-ALDABA, also known as Isais Rivera-Aguilerra, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CR-390-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Juan Chavez-Aldaba a ppeals the 3 6

- m o nth, nonguidelines sentence i mposed following his guilty plea convictio n f o r illegally

r eentering the United States after having been removed. His sole cla i m o n appeal is that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Because Chavez-Aldab a d o e s n o t c o nt e n d t h a t t h e district court committed any procedural e rror in imposing the s entence, our review is confined to whether the sentence i s s ubstantively reasonable. See Gall v. U nited States , 552 U.S. 38,

U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 9, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-50017 Document: 00512401698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2013No. 13-50017

51 (200 7 )

. After United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences are ordinarily reviewed for substantive reasonableness under a n abuse of discretion

s t a n d a rd. United States v. Johnson , 619 F.3d 469, 4 71-72 (5th Cir. 20 1 0 )

. B e c ause Chavez-Aldaba failed to challenge the reasonableness of his sent e n c e
on the same grounds that he raises o n a p p e a l , h owever, w e r e view the substantive reasonableness of his sentence for plain error. See United States v. Dunigan , 5 55 F.3d 501, 506 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Pelt i e r , 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Chavez-Aldaba argues that the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 — which he contends has had a “problematic development” — double-counted his criminal history and o verstated the seriousness of h is illegal reentry offense, resulting in a guid e l i nes r ange that was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing g oals of § 3553(a). Any argument that § 2L1.2 is not empi r i c a l l y bas e d i s foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United S tates v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, w e h ave r e p eatedly rejected the

a r g u m e n t s that a sentence imposed pursuant to § 2L1.2 is greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s goals as a result of any double counting inherent in that Guideline, see id. at 529-31, and that § 2L1.2 overstates the seriousness of illegal r eentry because i t is an i n ternational tr e s p a s s offense, see United States v. Aguirre-Villa , 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th C ir. 2006). In addition, although Chavez-Aldaba contends that there were mitigating factors for his reentry into t h e United States, the district court d id not f ail t o take those factors into account. Accordingly, b e c a u s e we find no error, plain or otherwise, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50017 Document: 00512401698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2013