IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50971

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MANUEL DE JESUS CHICAS-GUEVARA,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-862-1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel De Jesus Chicas-Guevara challenges his 30-month sentence 

which was within the sentencing range for the advisory Sentencing Guidelines 

and was imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after 

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In claiming his sentence 

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet the 

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Chicas maintains his advisory 

* 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

April 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50971 Document: 00513001067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2015
No. 14-50971

Guidelines-sentencing range is too severe because the reentry Guideline is not 

based on empirical analysis, the Guidelines double-count his criminal history,

and they fail to account for the “international trespass” nature of his reentry 

offense. He further claims the court failed to consider: his benign motive for 

returning; his strong ties to the United States; and his substance abuse.

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and 

a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for 

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must 

still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in 

deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of 

the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. 

E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Chicas does not claim procedural error. Instead, as noted, he claims only that 

his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

Conceding he failed to object to the reasonableness of his sentence in 

district court, Chicas asserts plain-error review should not apply because no 

objection is required to preserve the issue of the substantive reasonableness of 

a sentence. He acknowledges, however, that this issue is foreclosed, and he 

raises it only to preserve it for further possible review. E.g., United States v. 

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. 

Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Under the plain-error standard, Chicas must show a forfeited plain (clear 

or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the 

error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of the proceedings. Id.

2

 Case: 14-50971 Document: 00513001067 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2015
No. 14-50971

As he concedes, Chicas’ empirical-data contention is foreclosed. E.g.,

United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529–31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir. 2009). This court has 

also rejected Chicas’ international-trespass contention. E.g., United States v. 

Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). (Again, he raises both claims 

only to preserve them for further possible review.)

Additionally, Chicas’ within-Guidelines sentence is presumed 

reasonable. E.g., United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012)

(citation omitted). His general disagreement with the propriety of his sentence 

and the court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut that

presumption. E.g., United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Further, the court considered Chicas’ claims in mitigation and rejected them. 

E.g., United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-50971 Document: 00513001067 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/10/2015