### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-51234 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ, also known as Jose Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CR-2256-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Antonio R amirez pleaded guilty to i l l e gal reentry after deportation in violation o f 8 U.S.C. § 1 326 and was sentenced to 7 1 months of imprisonment

a nd three years of supervised release. R amirez challenges t he substa n t i v e reasonableness of his s e n tence, arguing t hat his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the s entencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that the guidelines range overstated the seriousness of the U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 19, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-51234 Document: 00512345993 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2013No. 12-51234

offense, w hich w as essentially a trespass, and failed t o a ccount for his benign motive for reentering to be with his family. Because Ramirez did not make any objections t o his sentence or argue in the district c o u r t t hat his s entence was unreasonable, his arguments are reviewable o nly f

or plain error. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 134- 35 (2009); Uni t e d S t a tes v . Peltier , 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007) (requiring objection to substantive unreasona b l e n e ss o f sentence to preserve error). To show plain error, the a ppellant must show a forfeited err o r that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett , 556 U

. S. at 135. If the appellant ma k e s s uch a showing, we h ave the discretion to correct the error but only if i t seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id . at 135. We have pr e viously rejected the argument that illegal reentry is merely

a trespass offense that is treated too harshly under U

. S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v . A

guirre-Villa , 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court heard the arguments of Ramirez’s counsel concerning his reasons for reentering the United States before imposing a sentence within t he a dvisory g u i d e l i n es range. The district court considered R a m i r e z’s personal history and characteristics and the other statutory s entencing factors in § 3553(a), in particular R a mirez’s criminal history of robbery offenses, prior to imposing a sentence within the Guidelines. The within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption o f reasonableness. See R ita v. United States , 551 U.S

. 3 3 8 , 347 (2007). Ramirez’s argument concerning his benign motive for reentry to be with his family fails to rebut that p resumption. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Ramire z h as not shown that the district court’s imposition of a within-guidelines sentence of 71 months constituted plain

error. See Peltier , 5 05 F.3d at 391-92. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-51234 Document: 00512345993 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2013