IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50152 

c/w No. 14-50153

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO ROSALES-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-397-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Rosales-Gonzalez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed 

following the revocation of his supervised release. He also pleaded guilty to a 

charge of illegal reentry and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. 

However, because he does not raise any arguments related to that conviction 

or sentence, he abandons any such challenge. See United States v. Scroggins, 

599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010).

In this court, Rosales-Gonzalez contends that his revocation sentence, 

which is within the range set forth in the nonbinding policy statements found 

in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory maximum, is 

* 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

January 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50152 Document: 00512890652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2015
No. 14-50152 

c/w No. 14-50153

plainly unreasonable. He alleges that the district court failed to consider 

mitigating circumstances for his most recent reentry, such as his desire to 

support his children and ill mother and to escape violent conditions in Mexico. 

He also complains that the district court placed too much emphasis on his 

history of domestic violence.

Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under the “plainly 

unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 

2011). Because Rosales-Gonzalez did not specifically object to the 

unreasonableness of his sentence in the district court, we review for plain error 

only. See United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 425 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 

S. Ct. 470 (2013). Moreover, the sentence was within the advisory guidelines

range and is entitled to the presumption of reasonableness. See United States 

v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008).

The district court heard Rosales-Gonzalez’s arguments for a lesser 

sentence but determined that a 24-month sentence was appropriate. “[T]he 

sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import 

under [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” United 

States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). RosalesGonzalez has not shown that the 24-month revocation sentence was 

substantively unreasonable. His motive to reunite with his family is not 

sufficient to justify a lower sentence or to rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th 

Cir. 2008). He has thus failed to establish any reversible plain error in 

connection with the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Heard, 709 F.3d 

at 425-26.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50152 Document: 00512890652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2015