IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50253

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JUAN PABLO QUEZADA REBULLOZA,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-2176-1

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Pablo Quezada Rebulloza challenges the substantive 

reasonableness of his 27-month within-Guidelines sentence for improper use 

of another’s passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1544. In asserting his sentence 

is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), he 

contends he used the passport to illegally enter the United States solely for the 

purpose of reuniting with his family, and not to either commit a crime of 

 

* 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

November 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50253 Document: 00513258433 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2015
No. 15-50253

2

terrorism or endanger others. Quezada also contends the sentence: was based 

on the Guidelines’ “relatively high starting point [of a 27-to-33-month 

sentencing range] for the relatively minor offense”; overstated the seriousness 

of his criminal history; and does not reflect his personal history and 

characteristics. 

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 Guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on 

the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48–51 (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); United 

States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). 

As Quezada concedes, he did not object to the reasonableness of his 

sentence; therefore, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Peltier, 

505 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 2007). (Regarding his conceded failure to object, 

Quezada maintains he should not be required to do so concerning the 

reasonableness of his sentence when it is imposed; recognizes this issue is 

foreclosed by our circuit precedent; and presents the issue to preserve it for 

possible future review. Moreover, even if the more lenient abuse-of-discretion 

standard were applied to his challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, 

it would fail.) 

Under the applicable plain-error review, if Quezada demonstrates a clear 

or obvious error that affects his substantial rights, the reversible plain error 

may be remedied, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

 Case: 15-50253 Document: 00513258433 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2015
No. 15-50253

3

(2009). For the following reasons, the requisite clear or obvious error is 

lacking. 

Quezada’s sentence was within the Guidelines advisory sentencing 

range and is, therefore, presumptively reasonable. E.g., United States v. 

Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). To rebut that presumption, Quezada 

must show: “the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive 

significant weight, . . . gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper 

factor, or . . . represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing 

factors”. Id.

The district court considered Quezada’s assertions in mitigation of his 

sentence and, balancing them with the § 3553(a) objectives, concluded a

sentence at the bottom of the sentencing range was appropriate. See United 

States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). “[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 (5th Cir. 2008). The court determined

Quezada’s criminal history, cultural assimilation, and benign motive for 

illegally returning to the United States did not warrant a below-Guidelines 

sentence, but granted his request for a sentence at the low end of the 

sentencing range. See Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 565-66. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50253 Document: 00513258433 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2015