IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10057

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LIRA-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-199-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Lira-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following 

deportation. The district court varied upward from the applicable guidelines 

sentencing range of 57 to 71 months and sentenced Lira-Rodriguez to 100 

months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. LiraRodriguez now appeals his sentence as being substantively unreasonable. He 

argues that the upward variance was based on old convictions and that the 

district court failed to give appropriate weight to the fact that he had spent 

 

* 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 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10057 Document: 00513775904 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2016
No. 16-10057

2

most of his life in the United States and to the fact that he had already been 

punished for his prior crimes. 

Sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines, are reviewed for 

reasonableness in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence is unreasonable if it “(1) does not 

account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives 

significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear 

error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. 

Chandler, 732 F.3d 434, 437 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation and citations 

omitted).

The record reflects that the district court considered Lira-Rodriguez’s 

mitigating arguments but appropriately relied on several § 3553(a) factors in 

determining that an above-guidelines sentence was warranted. Those factors 

included the nature and circumstances of the offense; Lira-Rodriguez’s history 

and characteristics; the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the 

offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the 

offense; the need to provide adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; and the 

need to protect the public from further crimes by Lira-Rodriguez. The district 

court’s decision to vary above the advisory guidelines range was based on 

permissible factors that advanced the objectives set forth in § 3553(a). See

United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). LiraRodriguez has not shown that the district court committed clear error in 

balancing the sentencing factors. See Chandler, 732 F.3d at 437. Further, the 

extent of the variance is similar to other variations affirmed by the court. See 

United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2008); LopezVelasquez, 526 F.3d at 807.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10057 Document: 00513775904 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2016