IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50375

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODRIGO SANCHEZ-LERMA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-298-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Rodrigo Sanchez-Lerma was convicted of

transporting illegal aliens for financial gain and conspiracy to transport illegal

aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. He was sentenced within the Sentencing

Guidelines to 21 months of imprisonment on both counts, to run concurrently,

and to concurrent three-year terms of supervised release. He appeals his

sentence, claiming that it is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 28, 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: 11-50375 Document: 00511903249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2012
No. 11-50375

We review sentences for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360

(5th Cir. 2009). Our review is bifurcated. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). We first determine whether the sentencing court committed a significant

procedural error. Id. If we conclude that the district court’s decision is

procedurally sound, we will then proceed to review the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, applying an abuse-of-discretion

standard. United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751 (5th Cir. 2009). 

“A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d

337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We review a district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo and its

factual findings for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 362

(5th Cir. 2010). However, if a defendant has not preserved an issue for review

in the district court, review is for plain error. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564

F.3d at 361. 

In this case, Sanchez-Lerma failed to alert the district court to the alleged

procedural error in such a manner that the district court could correct itself and

obviate the need for our review and further failed to object to the substantive

reasonableness of his sentence. Accordingly, our review is for plain error. See

id. at 360-61. To prevail, Sanchez-Lerma must demonstrate an error that is

clear or obvious and that affects substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States,

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If such a showing is made, we have the discretion to

correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

Although Sanchez-Lerma contends that the district court committed

procedural error by failing to properly calculate his sentence, he has failed to

demonstrate any error in the district court’s calculations. Moreover, to the

extent that he suggests that his sentence resulted in an unwarranted disparity

2

Case: 11-50375 Document: 00511903249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2012
No. 11-50375

between him and other defendants who obtained a reduced sentence based on

the fast-track early disposition program, that argumentis foreclosed. See United

States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 562-63 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2008). 

The record also refutes his assertion that the district court erred by failing

to consider all of the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). The record reflects

that the district court considered the mitigation arguments raised by SanchezLerma and expressly stated that it had considered the individual § 3553(a)

factors as well as the allocution of the parties and the information contained in

the presentence report in determining the sentence. The district court did not

fail to consider the § 3553(a) factors but instead made an individualized

sentencing decision based on the facts of the case and in light of the § 3553(a)

factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51. Accordingly, Sanchez-Lerma has failed to

demonstrate that his sentence is the result of any procedural error.

He also argues that his 21-month sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it is three months higher than the sentence recommended by the

Government. His disagreement with the district court’s assessment of an

appropriate sentence under the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the

presumption that his within-guidelines sentence is reasonable. See United

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

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-50375 Document: 00511903249 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2012