# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precede nt except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 02/09/2021No. 20

- 50552

2 personal history of substance abuse, mental illness, and having been the victim of childhood sexual abuse. Ar g uing 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 S tates 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 Lopez

Velasquez , 526 F.3d at 808

- 09. And her e, 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. 2 012) (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) ). T hus, t he totality of the circumsta nces 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: 02/09/2021No. 20

- 50552

3 balancing the § 3553(a) factors. S ee 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