United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60940

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Leonel Nazario Ramos-Guerrero, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:14-CR-80-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Leonel Nazario Ramos-Guerrero appeals his sentence stemming from

the revocation of the supervised release he had been serving following a 

conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that his

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 3, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60940 Document: 00516343057 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2022
No. 21-60940

2

sentence is substantively unreasonable. For the following reasons, we 

AFFIRM. 

In the underlying criminal case from 2015, Leonel Nazario RamosGuerrero, a Mexican national, was convicted in the Southern District of 

Mississippi for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a)(2) and (b)(2). The conviction, his third for that same offense,

resulted in a sentence of 50 months’ incarceration followed by three years 

supervised release. The terms of Ramos-Guerrero’s supervised release 

included requirements that he “shall not commit another federal, state or 

local crime” and that he “shall not re-enter the United States without written 

permission of the Secretary of Homeland Security.” After Ramos-Guerrero 

was released from prison, he was deported back to Mexico and his term of 

supervised release began on September 7, 2018. 

In August 2020, Ramos-Guerrero was arrested in San Antonio, Texas, 

and charged with illegal reentry into the United States (for which he was 

ultimately sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment). After that arrest in 

Texas, Ramos-Guerrero faced a petition in the Southern District of 

Mississippi to revoke his supervised release for his 2015 illegal reentry 

conviction. That petition was based on allegations that he violated the terms 

of his supervised release by reentering the United States without permission 

and thereby committing another criminal offense. At his revocation hearing, 

Ramos-Guerrero admitted the violations and his supervised release was 

revoked. The district court found that the violations constituted Grade B and 

Grade C violations; therefore, based on his criminal history category of V, his 

guideline sentencing range was 18-24 months’ incarceration. 

The district court then listened to an allocution from RamosGuerrero. Ramos-Guerrero acknowledged that he was “guilty of coming 

back,” apologized, and explained the circumstances surrounding his return 

Case: 21-60940 Document: 00516343057 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2022
No. 21-60940

3

in this instance. Specifically, he said that previously he had “never tried to 

stay in Mexico” and that, while he had committed to remain following his 

most recent deportation, he was later “picked up by the cartel and got beat 

up and left for dead, broke [his] jaw, and as a result of that, [had] PTSD 

now.” Following the attack, he became afraid that if he remained in Mexico,

he “was going to die or maybe put [his] mom and dad in some problems, 

because if [the cartel] came looking for [him], [he] was staying with [his] mom 

and dad.” Those fears prompted his decision to return. 

Following Ramos-Guerrero’s allocution, his counsel acknowledged 

the recommendations of the advisory guideline range and Sentencing 

Commission policy statements to run the sentence consecutive to RamosGuerrero’s sentence in Texas on the new illegal reentry conviction. Counsel 

then requested that the court run the revocation sentence concurrent to the 

Texas sentence, either in part or in total, given the length of that sentence. 

The district court sentenced Ramos-Guerrero to 18 months’ 

imprisonment, to run consecutive to the Texas sentence. In doing so, the 

court considered several statutory factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and found 

the following factors relevant: “The need to afford adequate deterrence to 

criminal conduct, the need to protect the public, and the need to control the 

offender’s conduct.” The court further noted that Ramos-Guerrero “has not 

been deterred from engaging in criminal conduct and continuing to return 

illegally.” While the court was “sympathetic and understands why [RamosGuerrero] may feel an impulse to do what he did,” that sympathy did not 

“change the fact that [Ramos-Guerrero’s actions were] against the law in this 

country” and had “happened repeatedly.” The district court also noted that 

Ramos-Guerrero’s criminal history category of V was “significant” and 

“reflect[ed] a repeated defiance of the laws of this country.” The court lastly 

stated that, in fashioning its sentence, it “carefully considered the advisory 

policy statement” of the guidelines and “the appropriate factors” from 18 

Case: 21-60940 Document: 00516343057 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2022
No. 21-60940

4

U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3582. Following the issuance of the sentence, neither 

party objected. Ramos-Guerrero timely appeals. 

Ramos-Guerrero challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his 

sentence. “A [revocation] sentence is substantively unreasonable if 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. Winding, 817 F.3d 910, 914 (5th Cir. 2016) (alteration in 

original) (quoting United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013)). 

Because Ramos-Guerrero did not object to the substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence before the district court, we review for plain error. See United 

States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2013). “To prevail on plain error 

review, a defendant must show that an error occurred, that the error was clear 

or obvious, and that the error affected his substantial rights.” United States 

v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 2014). Even then, “the decision to 

correct the forfeited error is within the court’s sound discretion, which will 

not be exercised unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. 

Ramos-Guerrero is unable to clear that high bar here. The district 

court issued Ramos-Guerrero a sentence that was within the guidelines 

range. Further, Ramos-Guerrero has no complaint with the calculation of the 

guidelines range. “Sentences within a properly-calculated guidelines range 

enjoy a presumption of reasonableness.” United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 714 

F.3d 289, 295 (5th Cir. 2013). In addition, the relevant policy statement from 

the Sentencing Commission states that “[a]ny term of imprisonment

imposed upon the revocation of . . . supervised release shall be ordered to be 

served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is 

serving[.]” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). As stated above, Ramos-Guerrero must 

rebut that presumption by pointing to an unreasonable failure by the district 

Case: 21-60940 Document: 00516343057 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/03/2022
No. 21-60940

5

court to consider the correct factors or an unreasonable balancing of the 

factors. He cannot. The district court was guided by the correct statutory 

factors, such as the need for deterrence, and made no error in finding that the 

issued within-guidelines sentence was necessary to hopefully deter RamosGuerrero from what would be his fifth illegal reentry into the United States. 

And it was not unreasonable nor an error for the district court to follow the 

clear dictates of the Sentencing Commission by having said sentence run 

consecutive to Ramos-Guerrero’s other sentence. 

To demonstrate unreasonableness, Ramos-Guerrero points to the fact 

that his return was motivated by the violence he suffered at the hands of a

cartel in Mexico and his fear for his family. The district court explicitly 

considered that countervailing factor, and indeed stated it was 

“sympathetic” to what Ramos-Guerrero had faced and understood “why he 

may feel an impulse to do what he did.” The district court simply found that 

factor did not outweigh the need for deterrence and the unambiguous 

guidance of the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Chavez-Perez, 

844 F.3d 540, 546 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2215 (2017) (finding 

that neither “proposed arguments regarding [the defendant’s] family 

situation nor the dangers he faced in Mexico” would necessarily affect a 

sentence where the district court placed heavy weight on repeated criminal 

violations). It is “the sentencing judge [who] is in a superior position to find 

facts and judge their import[.]” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 

337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Especially given the sharper view of the case the 

district court enjoyed from its vantage point, it was not error, clear or 

otherwise, for the court to strike the balance it did—a balance that faithfully 

followed a path well-lit by statute and the Sentencing Guidelines and reached 

a destination that was not only within the guidelines range but at its low end. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-60940 Document: 00516343057 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/03/2022