IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40798

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BENJAMIN PEREZ-ARREAGA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-226

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Perez-Arreaga appeals the 41-month prison sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United States after a 

previous deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). For the first 

time on appeal, he contends that his sentence, which is within the applicable 

advisory sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment, is substantively 

unreasonable and greater than necessary to effectuate the sentencing goals of 

 

* 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

June 11, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40798 Document: 00513075669 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
No. 14-40798

2

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in particular the need for the sentence imposed to act as a 

deterrent to future offenses, protect the public, and provide just punishment. 

He maintains that the district court failed to account for the true danger he 

faced in Mexico and to consider the United States Sentencing Commission’s 

policy statement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12, which permits a downward 

departure from the guidelines range when an offense has been committed due 

to serious coercion or duress.

To the extent that Perez-Arreaga argues that the district court erred by 

failing to depart downward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12, we lack jurisdiction 

to review the argument. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 627 (5th 

Cir. 2013). We review Perez-Arreaga’s remaining claims regarding the 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence for plain error. See United States 

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Under plain error review, 

Perez-Arreaga must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that 

affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). If he makes such a showing, we may exercise our discretion to correct 

the error but only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Perez-Arreaga’s assertion that the district court failed to account for the 

dangers he faced in Mexico reflects his disagreement with the weighing of the 

§ 3553(a) factors and does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness that 

applies to his within-guidelines sentence on appellate review. See United 

States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court considered

his mitigation arguments, concluded that a within-guidelines sentence would 

satisfy the sentencing goals of § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence at the bottom 

of the guidelines range. The court’s sentencing determination is entitled to 

 Case: 14-40798 Document: 00513075669 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
No. 14-40798

3

deference, and we may not reweigh the § 3553(a) factors or reverse a sentence 

because we might reasonably conclude that a different sentence is appropriate.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Perez-Arreaga has shown no 

error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-40798 Document: 00513075669 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/11/2015