IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10858

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

LUIS ALBERTO MUNIZ-MONSIVAIS, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 6:16-CR-3-1 

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Luis Alberto Muniz-Monsivais received a 36-month, above-Guidelines 

term of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release after 

pleading guilty to illegally reentering the United States following deportation. 

He argues that his prison sentence is substantively unreasonable. Our review 

is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

 

* 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

Fif h Circuit

FILED

March 15, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10858 Document: 00513912813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2017
No. 16-10858

2 

In fashioning its sentence, the district court permissibly took into 

account Muniz-Monsivais’s prior convictions for illegally entering the country

and his history of prior removals and reentries. See United States v. LopezVelasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Despite Muniz-Monsivais’s 

protestations that his criminal history was not unusual, extraordinary 

circumstances are not required to justify an above-Guidelines sentence. Id. 

(citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 47). Although Muniz-Monsivais disputes the court’s 

determination that he lacked respect for the law, his history of illegally 

returning to the country after being deported supports this finding. See id. 

Although the district court imposed a sentence 15 months higher than 

the top end of the Guidelines range, that court was in the best position to judge 

Muniz-Monsivais and the circumstances of the offense. See United States v. 

Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 812–13 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court tied the 

reasons for its sentence to specific facts, particularly Muniz-Monsivais’s 

history of removals and illegal reentries and his lack of respect for the laws of 

the United States. The court made an individualized assessment and was free 

to conclude as it did that, in Muniz-Monsivais’s case, the Guidelines range gave 

insufficient weight to some of the sentencing factors, including the seriousness 

of the offense, Muniz-Monsivais’s history and characteristics, the need to 

promote respect for the law, the need to protect the public, and the need to 

deter Muniz-Monsivais from engaging in future criminal conduct. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a); Williams, 517 F.3d at 809. Nothing suggests that the district 

court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, 

gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment 

in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 

708 (5th Cir. 2006). 

 AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-10858 Document: 00513912813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2017