IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50286

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

LUIS ANTONIO GUERRA-PALOMO, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:17-CR-924-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Antonio Guerra-Palomo appeals the 24-month, above-guidelines 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into 

the United States after removal. He argues that the sentence is greater than 

necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Guerra-Palomo 

contends that the sentence overstates the seriousness of his offense and 

 

* 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

October 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50286 Document: 00514693570 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2018
No. 18-50286

2

criminal history and fails to provide just punishment for that offense. He 

further urges that the sentence overstates the need to protect the public and 

promote respect for the law, and fails to adequately account for his personal 

history and circumstances, including the presence of his family in Mexico, his 

history of long-term employment in that country, and his lack of a record of 

violence or abuse.

We review sentences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the 

§ 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). In previous cases, we have rejected the arguments 

that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal reentry because it is a 

mere trespass offense, see United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 

(5th Cir. 2008), and that the Guidelines’ double-counting of criminal history 

for illegal reentry renders a sentence unreasonable, see United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, the district court 

properly relied on Guerra-Palomo’s prior conviction in imposing an aboveguidelines sentence. See United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440 (5th Cir. 

2013). His remaining arguments amount to disagreement with the district 

court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors and fail to show that the district court 

abused its discretion. See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 

2016); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (“The fact that the appellate court might 

reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is 

insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.”) The record reflects the 

district court listened to and considered Guerra-Palomo’s arguments in favor 

of a lower sentence and rejected them, which was sufficient. See Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58 (2007).

Guerra-Palomo has not shown that the district court failed to consider 

any significant factors, gave undue weight to any improper factor, or clearly 

 Case: 18-50286 Document: 00514693570 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2018
No. 18-50286

3

erred in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 

704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-50286 Document: 00514693570 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/23/2018