# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opin ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 03/12/2021No. 20

- 50710

2 the advisory sentencing guidelines range of zero to six months in prison. On appeal, Bernal asserts that h er 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. O ut of an abundance of caution , we will analyz e Bernal’s substantive reasonableness claim as though

error w as 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 rev iews 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. Unite d 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 an d 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 state ments of the Guidelines, and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors , specifically not ing 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 respe ct for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, and afford adequate deterrence from crime. Case: 20-50710 Document: 00515777747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2021No. 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 h er 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 sentenc e 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