# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 -g uideline 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: 04/21/2023No. 22

- 40638

2 Contrary to Zuniga’s assertion, his request for a dow nward 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 t he 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 tha t 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 di sparity 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 r elevant 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 argument s amount to a mere disagreement with the sentence imposed, which is insufficient to supp ort 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: 04/21/2023No. 22

- 40638

3 applicable to his within

- 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