United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50710

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Olga Leija Bernal, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CR-3280-1

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Olga Leija Bernal pleaded guilty, without the benefit of a plea 

agreement, to making a false statement or representation to an agency or 

department of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). The 

district court sentenced Bernal to nine months in prison, which was above 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 12, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50710 Document: 00515777747 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2021
No. 20-50710

2

the advisory sentencing guidelines range of zero to six months in prison. On 

appeal, Bernal asserts that her term of imprisonment is substantively 

unreasonable as it is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). 

Although Bernal did not specifically object to the substantive 

reasonableness of her sentence after it was imposed, she arguably did seek a 

sentence lower than the one ultimately imposed. Out of an abundance of 

caution, we will analyze Bernal’s substantive reasonableness claim as though 

error was preserved. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 

764-67 (2020); United States v. Holguin-Hernandez, 955 F.3d 519, 520 n.1 (5th 

Cir. 2020) (opinion on remand).

This court reviews sentences, whether inside or outside the 

Guidelines, for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 

§ 3553(a) and reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

46-47, 49-51 (2007). A sentence is not unreasonable merely because a 

different sentence would also have been appropriate. Id. at 51.

The record demonstrates that the district court assessed the facts and 

arguments of the parties and determined that a sentence within the advisory 

guidelines range was insufficient to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 

§ 3553(a). The district court further adopted the PSR and considered the 

advisory sentencing guidelines range, the policy statements of the 

Guidelines, and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, specifically noting the 

nature and circumstances of the offense, the seriousness of the offense, the 

history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need for the sentence to 

promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, and 

afford adequate deterrence from crime. 

Case: 20-50710 Document: 00515777747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2021
No. 20-50710

3

Bernal’s arguments on appeal constitute a disagreement with the 

district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors and correctness of the 

sentence imposed. This disagreement does not show error in connection 

with her sentence, nor does it show that the sentence imposed was not 

reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 

342 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th 

Cir. 2008). Furthermore, this court does not reweigh the § 3553(a) factors 

and reexamine their relative import, nor will it reverse the district court on 

the basis that this court could reasonably conclude that a different sentence 

was proper. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 

344 (5th Cir. 2011). Bernal’s sentence is supported by numerous § 3553(a) 

factors and is within the statutory maximum. See § 1001(a). 

As to the extent of the variance, Bernal’s nine-month sentence is three 

months greater than the top of her advisory guidelines range, and this court 

has upheld much greater variances. See United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 

471-72, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 

526, 531-32 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 485, 492 

(5th Cir. 2005). Given the significant deference that is due a district court’s 

consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, Bernal has not demonstrated that the 

district court committed any error in imposing her above-guidelines 

sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-53. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-50710 Document: 00515777747 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2021