### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-50785 c/w No. 10-50792 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ANTONIO SANCHEZ-JAIMES, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CR-1150-1 USDC No. 2:10-CR-438-1

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Antonio Sanchez-Jaimes pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The di strict court sentenced him to 70 months in prison, within the guidelines range of 70 to 87

m o n t h s. The court also separately revoked a term of supervised release and imposed a concurrent sentence of 12 months. Sanchez-Jaimes now appeals. 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 July 8, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat 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: 10-50785 Document: 00511533834 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2011No. 10-50785 c/w No. 10-50792 S a n chez-Jaimes contends that § 2L1.2 of the United States Sentenci n g Guidelines leads to double-counting of criminal history, is not empirically based, and results in excessive sentences; that the age of the 1998 drug conviction used to enhance his sentence renders his sentence unreasonable; that his sentencing range overstates the seriousness of his illegal reentry offense, which he asserts is simply an international trespass; that his criminal history involves m i nor, nonviolent offenses; and that the district court did not take into account his history and characteristics, including his motive for reentering and his familial ties to the United States. We review sentences for reasonableness , e m p l o ying

a d e ferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and we presume that a sente n c e within a properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007); United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 1930 (2010). The purported double-counting and lack of empirical basis for § 2L1.2 do

n o t n e c essarily render a within-guidelines sentence unreasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 20 09). We likewise see

no ab u s e of di scretion in the court’s rejection of Sanchez-Jaimes’s contentio n th at unlawful reentry–a federal f e lony carrying significant criminal penalties–is merely an international trespass, nor do we discern any improper wei ghing of the other factors cited by Sanchez-Jaimes, inc l u di n g his personal history and

c h aracteristics. See Cooks , 589 F.3d at 186. In short, the distric t c o u r t considered Sanchez-Jaimes’s arguments, the facts o f t he case, and the appropri a t e s tatutory sentencing factors before concluding that a withingui delines sentence was appropriate. That determination is ow e d def er e nc e , an d Sanchez-Jaimes’s mere disagreement with the court’s assessment of those factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 201 0).

2 Case: 10-50785 Document: 00511533834 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2011No. 10-50785 c/w No. 10-50792 As Sanchez-Jaimes properly concedes, his contention that because § 2L1.2 is not empirically based, the presumption of reasonableness should not apply, is foreclosed. See Duart e , 5 6 9 F .3d at 530-31; United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 3 66-67 (5th Cir. 2009). As he further admits, his argument that the lack of a “fast-track” disposition program in the Western District of Texas creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity is also foreclosed. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 562-64 (5th Cir. 2 008). Finally, Sanchez-Jaimes rai s e s n o claims of error with respect to the revocation proceeding or the revocation sentence. Thus, he has abandoned any issues on appeal regarding the revocation ju d g m e nt

. See United States v. Willingham , 310 F.3d 367, 371 (5th Cir. 200 2). For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 10-50785 Document: 00511533834 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/08/2011