IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-51127

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO CONTRERAS-VILLEGAS, also known as Armando Contreras

Villegas,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-2014-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Armando Contreras-Villegas appeals the sentences imposed following his

guilty plea convictions for attempted illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326, and false personation in immigration matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1546. Contreras-Villegas contends that his within-guidelines sentences are

substantively unreasonable because they were greater than necessary to satisfy

the sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In that regard, ContrerasUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 13, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-51127 Document: 00511506213 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2011
No. 10-51127

Villegas asserts: the unlawful-reentry Guideline is not empirically based and

effectively double counts a prior conviction; he is prejudiced by a disparity

between sentencing districts that employ “fast track programs” and the one in

which he was sentenced that does not have that program; and his sentences fail

to take into account that his crime amounted to an attempted international

trespass and that he suffered physical abuse as a child.

We review the substantive reasonableness of Contreras-Villegas’s sentence

for an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). As

Contreras-Villegas concedes, his arguments regarding the lack of empirical data

for the illegal reentry Guideline and a fast track program are foreclosed by our

precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009) (rejecting defendant’s contention that because his

illegal reentry offense effectively double counted his previous crime and was

unsupported by empirical data, the presumption of reasonableness did not

apply); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 563 (5th Cir. 2008)

(rejecting challenge to a sentence based upon the lack of a fast track program).

Contreras-Villegas’s disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the

§ 3553(a) factors does not suffice to show error. See Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at

565-66. The district court considered and rejected his arguments for a sentence

below the recommended guidelines range. He has not shown that his sentences

are unreasonable, and he has not shown that the presumption of reasonableness

should not be applied to his within-guidelines sentences. See United States v.

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-51127 Document: 00511506213 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2011