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

No. 15

- 20598 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. CARLOS ARTURO SANDOVAL, also known as Jose Ricardo Zuniga Quintero , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 248

- 1

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Arturo Sandoval, a native and citizen of Colombia, appeals the 57

- month, within

- Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction of illegal reentry by a previously deported alien after a state

- law , aggravated

- fe lony conviction , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2)

. In challeng ing his sentence as substantively unreasonable , Sandoval contends

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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 July 28, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20598 Document: 00513613445 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2016No. 15

- 20598
the court should have granted his re quest for a sentence below the advisory sentencing range
. Because Sandoval did not raise these issues in district court, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard , 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Sandoval must show a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his subst antial rights. Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proc eedings”. Id. A within

- Guidelines sentence is presumed to be reasonable; the presumption is rebutted if defendant shows “the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or imp roper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors”. United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009)

. “ [T] he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) w ith re spect to a particular defendant ”

. United States v. Campos

- Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008)

. Sandoval’s reliance on the circumstances of his reentry offense and allegedly benign motive for reentry do not show the clear or obvious error needed to r ebut that presumption. E.g., United States v. Gomez

- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565

– 66 (5th Cir. 2008)

. The court stated it considered the § 3553(a) factors and Sandoval’s contentions in support of a shorter sentence , such as his health issues, family ties, and his daughter’s medical problems, and concluded a Guide lines sentence was appropriate. See, e.g. , United States v. Rodriguez , 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008)

. Re

- stated, Sandoval’s disagreement with his sente nce is insufficient to establish plain error

. See , e.g. , United States v. Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).

2 Case: 15-20598 Document: 00513613445 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2016No. 15

- 20598
To the extent Sandoval’s challenge is to procedural reasonableness, it also fails. Assuming, arguendo , such a contention was adequately bri efed, the court did not fail to consider the § 3553(a) factors , as discussed supra
. See e.g., Cooks , 589 F.3d at 186. Additionally, Sandoval appears to challenge the validity of Almendarez

Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998) , in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000)

. Nevertheless, such a challenge to an illegal

reentry conviction is “fully foreclosed from further debate ”

. United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007). Sandoval raises a number of ot her issues, all of which are inadequately briefed: a n appellant’s brief must contain his “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which [he] relies ” , Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8) (A) , or they are waive d, s ee , e.g. , United States v. Thames , 214 F.3d 608, 611 n. 3 (5th Cir. 2000)

. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 15-20598 Document: 00513613445 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2016