United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-20617 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Pedro Ivan Espino-Rosales, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:20-CR-631-1 

______________________________ 

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Pedro Ivan Espino-Rosales appeals his 36-month above-guideline 

sentence for illegal reentry by a previously deported noncitizen after a felony 

conviction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). Espino-Rosales argues 

that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because: (1) the district court 

did not account for sentencing disparities when issuing its ruling; (2) the 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

September 21, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-20617 Document: 00516904182 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 22-20617 

2 

district court failed to account for his personal history and characteristics, 

specifically his cultural assimilation; (3) the district court erred in considering 

his circumstances as a whole. 

This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under 

a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

46-47, 49-51 (2007). An above-guidelines sentence may be unreasonable “if 

it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant 

weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or 

(3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” 

United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

Espino-Rosales fails to show that the district court abused its 

discretion in varying above the sentencing guidelines. First, his sentencing 

disparity argument fails as it makes no comparison between his offense 

conduct, particular criminal history, aggravating or mitigating factors, and 

related conduct of other defendants who received lesser sentences. 

See United States v. Waguespack, 935 F.3d 322, 337 (5th Cir. 2019). Second, 

although a sentencing court need not give dispositive weight to a defendant’s 

cultural assimilation, see United States v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 231, 232, 234-

35 (5th Cir. 2011), the record shows the district court considered EspinoRosales’ cultural assimilation argument but found this factor to be 

outweighed by his criminal history and pattern of illegally reentering the 

country. Finally, though Espino-Rosales states otherwise, his argument that 

the court improperly balanced the factors in light of the circumstances as a 

whole ultimately suggests that the district court should have weighed the 

sentencing factors differently. Disagreement with the district court’s 

weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is an insufficient ground for 

reversal. United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). In any 

Case: 22-20617 Document: 00516904182 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 22-20617 

3 

event, the record shows the court considered and weighed all the factors, and 

we give deference to its assessment of their import. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

Espino-Rosales also argues that the district court committed a 

substantive error when it relied on erroneous facts, specifically the use of the 

words “every time,” “benefit” and “opportunities” when detailing his 

criminal history and illegal reentries. Because he did not raise this argument 

in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. CotoMendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 586 (5th Cir. 2021). 

The court committed no clear or obvious error as the presentence 

report shows a pattern of unlawful entries followed by convictions for other 

offenses. Further, given the court’s consideration of the proper factors and 

the record, he has failed to demonstrate a “reasonable probability that, but 

for the [claimed] error, he would have received a lesser sentence.” United 

States v. Johnson, 943 F.3d 735, 738 (5th Cir. 2019). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-20617 Document: 00516904182 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2023