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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40955

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUILLERMO JAIME VILLEGAS, also known as Guillermo Villegas,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CR-451-1

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Guillermo Jaime Villegas appeals the within-Guidelines sentence that he

received. Villegas pleaded guilty to being unlawfully present in this country

after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that, in

light of his arguments for a sentence below the Guidelines, the district court did

not give adequate reasons for imposing its sentence. He also argues that the

sentence was greater than necessary to achieve the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 7, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-40955 Document: 00511133580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010
No. 09-40955

2

Villegas’s sentence is reviewed for reasonableness in light of the

sentencing factors in § 3553(a). United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d

3, 360 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009). This court first determines

whether the district court committed any significant procedural error, including,

among other things, not adequately explaining the sentence. Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If there is no procedural error, this court then

“consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id.

Villegas’s arguments about the procedural reasonableness of his sentence

are unavailing. The district court listened to Villegas’s arguments, adopted the

PSR, and rejected Villegas’s request for a downward departure. See United

States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 564-66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v.

Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525-26 (5th Cir. 2008). Unlike the district court in

United States v. Tisdale, 264 F. App’x 403, 412 (5th Cir. 2008), on which Villegas

relies, the district court in this case expressly referenced § 3553(a). Further, the

district court’s comments specifically addressed Villegas’s argument that his

inability to make a life in Mexico was a factor to consider in granting him a

sentence below the Guidelines. Thus, this court is satisfied that the district

court considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising

its own legal decision making authority. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,

356-57 (2007). 

Villegas’s argument that the facts and circumstances of his case rebut its

presumed substantive reasonableness is also unavailing given that it is

essentially a request for this to court re-weigh the § 3553(a) factors. “[T]he

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

under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” United States v.

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339. (2008). That this court “might

reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is

insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Case: 09-40955 Document: 00511133580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010
No. 09-40955

3

Villegas’s disagreement with the propriety of the within-guidelines sentence does

not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to it. See

Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 565-66; Rodriguez, 523 F.3d at 526. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 09-40955 Document: 00511133580 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2010