IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50972

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

JOSE ZAVALA, also known as Jose Jesus Zavala, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:13-CV-164-14 

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Zavala appeals the 210-month sentence imposed on resentencing 

for his jury trial conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 

500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount 

of methamphetamine. He contends that his bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence 

of imprisonment is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy 

the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

 

* 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

August 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50972 Document: 00514114406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2017
No. 16-50972

2 

 Zavala did not expressly object to his sentence in the district court, but 

the contentions he raises on appeal concerning the reasonableness of his 

sentence are substantially similar to the arguments he made when requesting 

a downward variance. We need not decide whether Zavala’s arguments for a 

variance were sufficient to preserve the issues he raises on appeal because, as 

discussed below, he has not shown that the sentence imposed by the district 

court was improper under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007), much less under the plain 

error standard, see Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 

The record does not support Zavala’s contention that the district court 

erred by failing to consider his relatively limited role in the conspiracy. The 

district court’s statements at resentencing indicate its determination that 

Zavala had committed a serious offense even though he was responsible for a 

lesser quantity of methamphetamine than others in the conspiracy. Zavala 

fails to show that the district court erred by failing to “account for a factor that 

should receive significant weight.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 

(5th Cir. 2009). 

 Zavala further contends that his 210-month sentence is unreasonable 

because he has a minimal criminal record and has never before been to prison, 

because he suffers from health problems, and because his risk of recidivism is 

low given his age and his criminal history. He asserts that the sentence is 

greater than necessary to protect the public because his offense did not involve 

violence and because he will likely be deported after serving a sentence of 

imprisonment. Zavala argues that proper consideration of the sentencing 

factors would justify a sentence of 180 months of imprisonment. 

As we have acknowledged, “the sentencing judge is in a superior position 

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

 Case: 16-50972 Document: 00514114406 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2017
No. 16-50972

3 

defendant.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 

2008). Zavala’s arguments amount to a request for a reweighing of the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, which we will not perform given the deference 

accorded the district court’s sentencing determinations. See United States 

v. Rodriguez-Bernal, 783 F.3d 1002, 1008 (5th Cir. 2015). 

Zavala has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness that applies 

to his sentence. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Because the district court did not 

abuse its discretion, let alone plainly err, in imposing a sentence within the 

advisory guidelines range, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-50972 Document: 00514114406 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/14/2017