United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-40638

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jesus Zuniga, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:22-CR-185-3 

______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jesus Zuniga appeals the within-guideline sentence imposed following 

his conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams 

of cocaine. He contends the sentence is both procedurally and substantively 

unreasonable.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40638 Document: 00516722257 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023
No. 22-40638

2

Contrary to Zuniga’s assertion, his request for a downward departure 

or variance did not preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the district 

court’s explanation of the sentence. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 

F.3d 583, 586 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207 (2021). The record shows 

that the district court responded to Zuniga’s arguments and provided some 

explanation for his within-guideline sentence. Zuniga has not shown that 

more of an explanation was required for his within-guidelines sentence. See 

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). 

As for his substantive-reasonableness challenge, Zuniga preserved the 

issue for appeal by moving for a downward variance. See Holguin-Hernandez 

v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 767 (2020). At sentencing, the district court 

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, found that the guideline range 

was appropriate, and found that a 96-month sentence was needed to protect 

the public and deter further criminal conduct. While Zuniga contends that 

the district court gave improper weight to the nature and circumstances of 

the offense and to his criminal history because of the disparity between his 

sentence and the 60-month sentence received by his co-defendant who 

possessed a gun, he ignores the disparity between his and his co-defendant’s 

criminal history category, which the district court explained was the driver of 

Zuniga’s higher guideline range. 

Zuniga has not shown that the district court considered an improper 

factor, failed to consider a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of 

judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589 

F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). His arguments amount to a mere disagreement 

with the sentence imposed, which is insufficient to support his contention 

that the sentence was unreasonable. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 

398 (5th Cir. 2010). He is essentially asking us to reweigh the § 3553(a) 

factors, which we will not do. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). Zuniga has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness 

Case: 22-40638 Document: 00516722257 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2023
No. 22-40638

3

applicable to hiswithin-guideline sentence and has not shown that the district 

court abused its discretion. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166-

67 (5th Cir. 2017); Cooks, 589 F.3d at 189.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-40638 Document: 00516722257 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2023