United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50013

consolidated with

No. 20-50027

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Elier Isai Marquez-Gonzalez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-558-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-632-1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Elier Isai Marquez-Gonzalez appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 

21 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

August 19, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 20-50013 Document: 00515532727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2020
No. 20-50013

c/w No. 20-50027

2

district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for entry after 

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence was 

greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals set out in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) and therefore unreasonable. Marquez-Gonzalez also appeals a 

separate revocation judgment, but raises no challenge to the revocation of his 

supervised release.

Pursuant to Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), we engage in 

a bifurcated review of the sentence imposed by the district court. United 

States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2009). First, we

consider whether the district court committed a “significant procedural 

error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines 

range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there is no error or the error is harmless, we

may proceed to the second step and review the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence imposed for an abuse of discretion. Id.; see also DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d at 751-53. A within-guidelines sentence such as MarquezGonzalez’s is afforded a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. 

Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). This presumption may be rebutted 

only if the defendant establishes “that the sentence does not account for a 

factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an 

irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in 

balancing sentencing factors.” Id.

Marquez-Gonzalez has not rebutted the presumption. He contends 

that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence at the top 

of the advisory range given his stated reason for illegally reentering the 

United States, namely the need to earn money and provide treatment for his 

handicapped daughter, and that the guidelines range overstated both the 

seriousness of his offense and his dangerousness. However, the district court 

heard Marquez-Gonzalez’s arguments regarding mitigation and the nature of 

his prior criminal convictions and sentences, and it ultimately decided to 

 Case: 20-50013 Document: 00515532727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2020
No. 20-50013

c/w No. 20-50027

3

impose a sentence at the top of the advisory guidelines range. The district 

court was in the best position to evaluate Marquez-Gonzalez’s history and 

characteristics, as well as the need for the sentence imposed to further the 

objectives set forth in § 3553(a), and its decision is entitled to deference. See 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51-52.

Finally, we have previously rejected Marquez-Gonzalez’s arguments 

regarding the nature of illegal reentry offenses and double-counting under 

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 

2009); United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 20-50013 Document: 00515532727 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2020