IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50756

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CESAR RAMIREZ-GUZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-416-2

Before WIENER, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Cesar Ramirez-Guzman appeals the concurrent 42-

month within-guidelines sentences he received following his guilty plea to (1)

conspiracy to possess 50 kilograms or more of marijuana with intent to

distribute and (2) possession of 50 kilograms or more of marijuana with intent

to distribute. Ramirez-Guzman argues that his sentences were greater than

necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He specifically

contends that the guidelines sentencing range was too severe because the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 27, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-50756 Document: 00511837628 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2012
No. 11-50756

district court did not consider his lack of criminal history, remorsefulness, and

need to provide for his family, but considered the unreliable statements from an

unknown cooperating source (CS). He further contends that his sentences are

not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because the drug guidelines are

not empirically based.

As Ramirez-Guzman did not object to the reasonableness of his sentences

in the district court, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Peltier,

505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Ramirez-Guzman’s reasonableness

arguments are unavailing. When reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence

within a properly calculated guidelines range, we generally will infer that the

district court considered all of the fair sentencing factors set forth in the

Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d at 511, 519 (5th Cir.

2005). The record reflects that the district court expressly considered the

§ 3553(a) factors as well as Ramirez-Guzman’s arguments for mitigating his

sentences but implicitly overruled them by concluding that a within-guidelines

sentence was “fair and reasonable” considering the circumstances of the case. 

See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008). In addition,

the district court did not base its decision on any statements made by the CS,

but relied on statements made by Ramirez-Guzman himself as well as

statements made by a reliable undercover agent. Accordingly, we decline

Ramirez-Guzman’s invitation to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors because “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.

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Furthermore, Ramirez-Guzman’s sentences, which are slightly higher than

the middle of the guidelines range, are presumed reasonable. See United States

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 766 (5th Cir. 2008). His empirical data

argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d

528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357,

2

Case: 11-50756 Document: 00511837628 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2012
No. 11-50756

366-67 n.7 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, his general disagreement with the

propriety of his sentences and the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a)

factors are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches

to within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th

Cir. 2010); United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). RamirezGuzman cannot demonstrate that the district court committed error, plain or

otherwise, by sentencing him to concurrent 42-month prison terms. See Peltier,

505 F.3d at 392-93. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-50756 Document: 00511837628 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2012