IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10727

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OLBIN ENRIQUE LAZO-PALMA, also known as David Lazo Oblin,

also known as David Olbin Lazo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-10-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Olbin Enrique Lazo-Palma pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, and the 

district court sentenced him to 18 months of imprisonment followed by a oneyear term of supervised release. The district court explained that the sentence 

 

* 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

April 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10727 Document: 00514442022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2018
No. 17-10727

2

represented an upward departure under U.S.S.G § 4A1.3(a)(1) from an 

advisory range of two to eight months of imprisonment. Lazo-Palma now 

appeals, arguing that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively 

unreasonable. 

For preserved claims of procedural error, this court reviews the district 

court’s interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo and its findings 

of fact for clear error. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 

(5th Cir. 2008). This court reviews “upward departures for reasonableness, 

which necessitates that we review ‘the district court’s decision to depart 

upwardly and the extent of that departure for abuse of discretion.’” United 

States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting United 

States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)). The district court did 

not abuse its discretion by upwardly departing based on Lazo-Palma’s prior 

administrative deportations, his receiving lenient sentences for past offenses, 

and his use of numerous aliases, as those factors influenced its determination 

that Lazo-Palma was a likely recidivist. See United States v. Zelaya-Rosales, 

707 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Simkanin, 

420 F.3d 397, 415-19 (5th Cir. 2005) (affirming an upward departure under 

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1) and U.S.S.G. 5K2.0).

“A sentence is unreasonable when it (1) does not account for a factor that 

should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an 

irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in 

balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 

154 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Lazo-Palma argues that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable for the second and third of these reasons. 

However, he has not shown that the district court considered an improper 

sentencing factor. See Zelaya-Rosales, 707 F.3d at 546. Moreover, our “review 

 Case: 17-10727 Document: 00514442022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2018
No. 17-10727

3

is highly deferential as the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find 

facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular 

defendant.” United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 435 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 

United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2012)). As 

Lazo-Palma merely disagrees with the weight the district court assigned to the 

different § 3553(a) factors and “cites no cases that would require this court to 

reweigh” those factors in his favor, he has not shown that the district court 

abused its discretion. See United States v. Aldawsari, 740 F.3d 1015, 1021-22 

(5th Cir. 2014). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-10727 Document: 00514442022 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/23/2018