### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50358 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JOSE RAUL BRUNO

- SANDOVAL , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 929

- 1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * I n contesting his 52

- month within

- advisory Sentencing Guidelines

sentence , imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry , in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) & 1326(b)(1)(2) , Jose Raul Bruno

- Sandoval challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, asserti ng it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing objectives of 1 8 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In support , he contends the district court’s application of Guideline § 2L1.2 ( the

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50358 Document: 00512890316 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2015No. 14

- 50358
illegal reentry G uideline) double

- counts his prior conviction and fails to

a ccount for the nonviolent nature of his offense, which he describes as an “international trespass”

. Bruno also asserts the district court failed to account for his personal circumstances and the circumstances of this offense. In that regard , he s t at es he returned to the United States for family reasons
. Alt hough , at sentencing, Bruno objected to the substantive reason

ableness of his sentence , subject to review for abuse of discretion, Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), he claims , for the fir st time on appeal, that his sentence is substantively unreasonable as a result of Guideline § 2L1.2. Therefore , regarding § 2L1.2, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Rodriguez , 15 F.3d 408 , 414 (5th Cir. 1994 ). Under that

s tandard, Bruno must show a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the error, but should do so only if it seriousl y affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id. Nevertheless, regardless of whether review is for plain error or abuse of discretion, Bruno has identified no reversible error

. Bruno acknowledges his challenge to Guideline § 2L1.2 is foreclosed ; he raises it only to preserve it for possible future review. E.g., United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 366

- 367 (5th Cir. 2009). Our court has also rejected his “double

- counting” claim. E.g., United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528 , 529

- 31 (5th Cir. 2009) . Similarly, our court is un persuaded by the contention that the Guidelines fail to account for the nonviolent nature of an illegal reentry offense. E.g., United States v. Aguirre

- Villa , 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5 th Cir. 2006). The district court considered Bruno ’ s request for a lesser sentence but found that a sentence in the middle of the G uidelines

- sentencing range was

2 Case: 14-50358 Document: 00512890316 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2015No. 14

- 50358
appropriate. His contentions regarding mitigating factors and benign motive do not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. E.g., United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Gomez

- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565

- 66 (5th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 14-50358 Document: 00512890316 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2015