IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-41232

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN SAUCEDO-VIANEY, also known as Juan Vianey Saucedo-Orroskieta,

also known as Ramiro Gomez-Orsieta, also known as Juan Gomez-Orrosquieta,

also known as Juan Saucedo-Orrosquieta, also known as Juan GurrusquietaGonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-657-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge and PRADO and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Saucedo-Vianey appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea

conviction for being illegally present in the United States after deportation. The

district court sentenced him to 36 months of imprisonment, which was a

downward departure from the advisory guidelines range of 46-57 months. On

appeal, Saucedo-Vianey argues that the application of a 16-level Sentencing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 18, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-41232 Document: 00511635772 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2011
No. 10-41232

Guidelines enhancement was unduly harsh and over-represented his criminal

history and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because his

history and characteristics supported an even lower sentence.

We review sentences for “reasonableness.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 46 (2007). This court ensures that the district court did not commit any

significant procedural error and considers the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence “under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 51. The abuse-ofdiscretion standard applies to “sentences that include an upward or downward

departure as provided for in the guidelines.” United States v.

Gutierrez-Hernandez, 581 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2009).

The district court’s written statement of reasons indicates that it departed

downward based on Saucedo-Vianey’s objection that his offense level

substantially overstated the seriousness of his prior conviction. Although

Saucedo-Vianey continues to argue on appealthatthis enhancement was unduly

harsh and over-represented his criminal history, he does not explain how, in

light of this successful objection and the resulting downward departure, the

district court committed any procedural error.

Saucedo-Vianey also argues that his sentence was substantively

unreasonable. At sentencing, the district court stated that it had considered the

sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and it discussed the need to deter

Saucedo-Vianey from returning to the United States illegally and to impress on

him the seriousness of his conduct. See § 3553(a)(2)(A), (B). The district court

was in a superior position to find facts and assess their import under § 3553(a),

and its determination of the appropriate sentence is entitled to deference. See

United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Saucedo-Vianey’s arguments do not establish that the district court abused its

discretion in weighing the various sentencing factors. 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-41232 Document: 00511635772 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2011