IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50722

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OMAR GARRON-MORALES, also known as Omar Carreon-Morales, also 

known as Faustino Omar Carreon-Morales,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-92

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Omar Garron-Morales appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following prior removal. He argues 

that his sentence, which is in the middle of the applicable guidelines range, is 

greater than necessary to meet the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Garron-Morales contests the application of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, the illegal reentry 

* 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

March 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50722 Document: 00512967667 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2015
No. 14-50722

guideline, on the basis that it double counts prior convictions, is not empirically 

based, and does not account for the nonviolent nature of his offense, which he 

asserts is an “international trespass.” He also contends that the district court 

did not account for his personal circumstances, specifically that he reentered 

the United States to obtain custody of his children.

Garron-Morales did not object in the district court to the reasonableness 

of his sentence and, thus, our review is for plain error. See United States v. 

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). However, even under the 

ordinary standard of review, he has not shown that his sentence was 

unreasonable.

As Garron-Morales acknowledges, his assertion that the presumption of 

reasonableness should not apply because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is

foreclosed, and he raises it to preserve it for further review. See United States 

v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). We likewise

have rejected his contention that a within-guidelines sentence is unreasonable 

because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis and effectively double counts prior 

convictions. United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Also, we have not been persuaded by the claim that the Sentencing Guidelines 

do not take into account the nonviolent nature of an illegal reentry offense. See

United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). 

With regard to Garron-Morales’s claim that his sentence did not reflect 

his personal circumstances, the district court considered his arguments that a 

lesser sentence was warranted on that ground and determined that a sentence 

within the guidelines range was proper. We must defer to the district court’s 

sentencing decision, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 51-52 (2007), 

and Garron-Morales has not demonstrated that the district court’s 

presumptively reasonable choice of sentence was incorrect. See United States 

2

 Case: 14-50722 Document: 00512967667 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2015
No. 14-50722

v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). His benign motive for returning to 

this country is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See 

United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-50722 Document: 00512967667 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2015