IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50165

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ-JAIMES, also known as Santiago Benitez-Jaimes,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-909-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Santiago Rodriguez-Jaimes appeals the 36-month, non-guidelines 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence on the ground that it is greater than necessary to achieve the 

sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

* 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

January 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50165 Document: 00512890786 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2015
No. 14-50165

Because he does not argue that the district court committed any 

procedural error in imposing the sentence, our review is limited to whether the 

sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). When the district court has imposed a sentence that varies from the 

guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that we evaluate whether 

the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors” set 

forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).

Here, Rodriguez-Jaimes states the following in his brief: “The district 

court imposed the 36-month sentence after considering [the defendant’s] 

uncounted criminal history. This was a proper sentencing consideration.” 

Although Rodriguez-Jaimes asserts that the district court gave too much 

weight to old, uncounted convictions and not enough weight to his medical 

conditions, the record does not reflect that the district court did not account for 

a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight 

to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in 

balancing the sentencing factors. Id. Rather, the record reflects that the 

district court considered the Guidelines and policy statements, the sentencing 

factors of § 3553(a), the Presentence Report, and Rodriguez-Jaimes’s 

arguments in mitigation of his sentence. Additionally, although the 36-month 

sentence is 12 months greater than the top of the guidelines range, we have

upheld greater deviations from the guidelines. See, e.g., United States v. Key, 

599 F.3d 469, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 

F.3d 526, 531-32 (5th Cir. 2008).

Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the significant 

deference that is due to a district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, 

the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-53; United 

2

 Case: 14-50165 Document: 00512890786 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2015
No. 14-50165

States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the district 

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-50165 Document: 00512890786 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2015