United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10436

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Victor Manuel Valdez-Pardo, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-384-1 

______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Victor Manuel Valdez-Pardo appeals the 20-month above-guidelines 

term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal 

reentry. He challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, 

arguing that it is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a).

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 15, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10436 Document: 00517032614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2024
No. 23-10436

2

Our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When reviewing a non-guidelines sentence for 

substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the circumstances, 

including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range, to determine 

whether, as a matter of substance, the sentencing factors in section 3553(a) 

support the sentence.” United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 400 

(5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We “give 

due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a 

whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 401 (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted).

The district court made an individualized assessment and concluded 

that the applicable guidelines range did not adequately take into account the 

§ 3553(a) factors. Although Valdez-Pardo asserts that the district court gave 

too much weight to his criminal history, which included numerous unscored 

convictions, “the sentencing court is free to conclude that the applicable 

Guidelines range gives too much or too little weight to one or more factors, 

and may adjust the sentence accordingly under § 3553(a).” United States v. 

Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Valdez-Pardo’s arguments amount to a disagreement 

with the district court’s weighing of the sentencing factors, which “is not a 

sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 

(5th Cir. 2016). Although Valdez-Pardo’s 20-month term of imprisonment 

is six months greater than the top of the guidelines range, we have upheld 

much greater variances. See, e.g., United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 437, 441

(5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 708, 710 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the significant deference 

that is given to the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, 

Valdez-Pardo’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See GerezanoRosales, 692 F.3d at 400-01.

Case: 23-10436 Document: 00517032614 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2024
No. 23-10436

3

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-10436 Document: 00517032614 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/15/2024