IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50972

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELVIN NAVARRO-NAVARRO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-30

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elvin Navarro-Navarro (Navarro) appeals the within-guidelines, 46-

month prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal 

reentry into the United States. He contends that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors.

We review preserved challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

* 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

May 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50972 Document: 00513044591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2015
No. 14-50972

(2007). Unpreserved challenges are reviewed for plain error. United States v. 

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 390-92 (5th Cir. 2007). We do not resolve whether 

Navarro preserved his instant arguments for appeal because, even if his

arguments were preserved, he has shown no error, plain or otherwise. See 

United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

Before imposing a within-guidelines sentence, the district court 

considered Navarro’s mitigating arguments, the Government’s 

counterarguments, the advisory guidelines range, and the § 3553(a) factors, 

including Navarro’s history and characteristics. Navarro has failed to show 

that the district court did not consider a factor that should have received 

significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, 

or made a clear error of judgment when it balanced the relevant factors. See 

United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). He thus has failed 

to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his withinguidelines sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 

338 (5th Cir. 2008).

Furthermore, we have rejected substantive reasonableness challenges 

based on the alleged lack of seriousness of an illegal reentry offense. See 

United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). We have 

also rejected the argument that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2’s double-counting of a prior 

conviction in the calculation of a defendant’s offense level and criminal history 

score necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable. See United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, as Navarro concedes, his 

argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not be applied to his 

within-guidelines sentence is foreclosed. See id. at 530-31; United States v. 

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

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50972 Document: 00513044591 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2015