United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50552

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Daniel Quintanilla, Jr., also known as Daniel Quintanilla, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-116-1

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Daniel Quintanilla, Jr., argues on appeal that his 24-month revocation 

sentence, which is both the statutory maximum and within the range 

recommended by the policy statements in the Sentencing Guidelines, is 

substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

February 9, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50552 Document: 00515738137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2021
No. 20-50552

2

personal history of substance abuse, mental illness, and having been the 

victim of childhood sexual abuse. Arguing that the Guidelines lack an 

empirical basis, Quintanilla also challenges the presumption of 

reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines revocation sentence, see, 

e.g., United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008), 

but he recognizes the issue is foreclosed and raises it only to preserve his 

opportunity for further appellate review. See, e.g., United States v. 

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

We review the sentence for reasonableness under the plainly 

unreasonable standard of review. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 

140 S. Ct. 762, 767 (2020); United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th 

Cir. 2013). We consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence 

imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. If 

the sentence is unreasonable, we then consider whether the district court’s 

“error was obvious under existing law.” Id. at 332 n.2 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Quintanilla has failed to show that his revocation sentence is 

substantively unreasonable. As Quintanilla recognizes, his within-guidelines 

revocation sentence is afforded a presumption of reasonableness. See LopezVelasquez, 526 F.3d at 808-09. And here, the district court considered at 

sentencing the very factors to which Quintanilla now points, but it implicitly 

concluded they did not warrant a lower sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); 

see also United State v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012) (explaining 

that a district court need not engage in “a checklist recitation of the section 

3553(a) factors” and that implicit consideration is generally sufficient

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, the totality of the 

circumstances reflects that the district court did not fail to account for a 

factor that should have received significant weight, give significant weight to 

an irrelevant or improper factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in 

Case: 20-50552 Document: 00515738137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2021
No. 20-50552

3

balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. Quintanilla’s 

arguments amount to no more than a request for this court to reweigh the 

§ 3553(a) factors, which we will not do as the district court is “in a superior 

position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) . . . .” United 

States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-50552 Document: 00515738137 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2021