IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50025

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CHINO-TELLEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 15-50026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CHINO-TELLEZ, also known as Juan Chino Tellez, also known as Juan 

Chino, also known as Juan Tellez, also known as Julian Chiano, also known as 

Juan C. Tellez, also known as Juan T. Chino, also known as Diablo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-253-1

USDC No. 2:14-CR-339-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 25, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50025 Document: 00513207688 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/25/2015
No. 15-50025

2

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Chino-Tellez (Chino) appeals the 41-month within-guidelines

sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, as 

well as the six-month within-guidelines sentence he received following the

revocation of his supervised release, which sentences were ordered to run 

consecutively. For the first time on appeal, Chino argues that his cumulative 

63-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than 

necessary to effectuate the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserts 

that his illegal reentry offense is essentially a nonviolent international 

trespass and that the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is 

problematic because it is not empirically based, atypically establishes an 

offense level based on prior criminal conduct, and effectively double counts the 

defendant’s criminal history in calculating a guidelines range. He also argues 

that his sentence is greater than necessary to provide adequate deterrence and 

fails to adequately account for his personal history and characteristics, 

including his benign reasons for reentry. We review these newly raised claims 

for plain error only. United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 

2007).

When, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly 

calculated guidelines range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable. United 

States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). To rebut this presumption, 

Chino must show “that the sentence does not account for a factor that should 

receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or 

 

* 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.

 Case: 15-50025 Document: 00513207688 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/25/2015
No. 15-50025

3

improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing 

sentencing factors.” Id.

As Chino acknowledges, his argument that the presumption of 

reasonableness should not apply because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is 

foreclosed, and he raises it only to preserve it for further review. See United 

States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). We 

likewise have previously rejected the contention that a within-guidelines 

sentence is unreasonable because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis and 

effectively double counts prior convictions. See United States v. Duarte, 569 

F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67 & 

n.7. Also, we have not been persuaded by the claim that the Sentencing 

Guidelines do not take into account the nonviolent nature of an illegal reentry 

offense. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Chino’s alleged benign motive for returning to this country is insufficient to 

rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his within-guidelines 

illegal reentry sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 

565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

Insofar as Chino challenges the consecutive nature of his sentences, his 

challenge is unavailing. Because his six-month revocation sentence falls 

within the applicable advisory guidelines range and is consistent with U.S.S.G

§ 7B1.3(f) (mandating “[a]ny term of imprisonment imposed upon the 

revocation of . . . supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively 

to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving”), it is entitled 

to a presumption of reasonableness. See, e.g., United States v. LopezVelasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); United 

States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 2006). Chino has made no effort 

to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his revocation sentence; 

 Case: 15-50025 Document: 00513207688 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/25/2015
No. 15-50025

4

his argument that his consecutive sentences were greater than necessary to 

achieve the § 3553(a) goals is wholly conclusional.

Thus, Chino has failed to show that his sentences amount to error, plain 

or otherwise. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50025 Document: 00513207688 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/25/2015