### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50182 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MARIA GUADALUPE ORTIZ-AGUINAGA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CR-164-1

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Maria Guadalupe Ortiz-Aguinaga (Ortiz) appeal s the 46-month within guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following her guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Ortiz argues that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable because it is gr e ater than necessary to meet the senten c i n g go al s in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), as it overstates the seriousness of her offense, fails to provide just punishment, undermines respect for the law, and is gr eater than necessary to deter future crime and to protect U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 3, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50182 Document: 00511654164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2011No. 11-50182

the public. In particular, she asserts that the Guidelines effectively double count her prior conviction by considering that offense in calculatin g her criminal history score and also in imposing a 16-level increase in her base offense level. Ortiz contends that her offense was simply an international trespass, that it was mitigated by her motive for returning, which was to visit her s o n ’s grave, and th a t she will be deterred from reentering now that she understands the harsh penalties attendant to returning to the United States. Because Ortiz did not raise these arguments before the district court, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009). This court has previously reje c ted the contention that the illegal reentry Guidelines impermissibly double c ount a defendant’s prior criminal history, as well as the contention th a t the Guidelines overstate th e seriousness of an illegal reentry offense based on the assertion that this is effectively only an international trespass offense. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Aguirre-Villa , 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Ortiz’s assert e d m o t iv e for reentering the United States does not establish that the district court plainly erred by imposing a within guidelines sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Finally, her contention th a t the harsh penalties associa t e d w i th her offense will deter her from returning to the United States serves to support the district court’s sentence. See§ 3553(a)(2)(B) & (C). The district court considered the arguments Ortiz made at sentencing, the facts of the case, and the appropriate statutory sentencing factors before concludin g that a within guidelines sentence was appropriate. That determination is owed deference, and O rtiz’s disagreement with the district court’s assessment of th o s e factors is insufficient to establish plain error . See United States v. Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 201 0). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-50182 Document: 00511654164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2011