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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50422

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IVAN ULISES GALARZA-RAMOS, also known as Ivan Ulises Galarza,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-3316-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ivan Ulises Galarza-Ramos (Galarza) appeals the 70-month sentence

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following

deportation. He contends that the sentence was greater than necessary to

satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and was therefore

substantively unreasonable. Specifically, Galarza argues that the guidelines

range was too severe because United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2 was

not empirically based and gave excessive weight to his prior robbery conviction.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 12, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-50422 Document: 00511027431 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
No. 09-50422

2

He contends that the guidelines range overstated the seriousness of his

nonviolent reentry offense and failed to account for his motive for reentering the

United States. Galarza also argues that this court should not afford a

presumption of reasonableness to a sentence imposed under § 2L1.2; however,

he recognizes that United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009), forecloses this argument.

This court reviews the “substantive reasonableness of the sentence

imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated

guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. CamposMaldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008).

This court has consistently rejected Galarza’s “empirical data” argument.

See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S.

Ct. 378 (2009). The district court considered Galarza’s request for a downward

variance, and it ultimately determined that a sentence at the bottom of the

applicable guidelines range was appropriate based on the circumstances of the

case and the § 3553(a) factors. Galarza’s assertions regarding § 2L1.2’s lack of

an empirical basis, the weight given his prior robbery conviction, the nonviolent

nature of his offense, and his motive for reentering the United States are

insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v.

Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624

(2008). As Galarza has not demonstrated that the district court’s imposition of

a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was an abuse of discretion, the

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-50422 Document: 00511027431 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2010