IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH 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) appeals 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 greater than necessary to

meet the sentencing goals 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 greater than necessary to deter future crime and to protect

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 3, 2011

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: 11-50182 Document: 00511654164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2011
No. 11-50182

the public. In particular, she asserts that the Guidelines effectively double count

her prior conviction by considering that offense in calculating 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 son’s grave, and

that 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 rejected the contention

that the illegal reentry Guidelines impermissibly double count a defendant’s

prior criminal history, as well as the contention that the Guidelines overstate

the 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 asserted motive 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 that the harsh penalties

associated with 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

concluding that a within guidelines sentence was appropriate. That

determination is owed deference, and Ortiz’s disagreement with the district

court’s assessment of those factors is insufficient to establish plain error. See

United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

2

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