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

challenging his sentence as substantively unreasonable, Sandoval contends

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 28, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-20598 Document: 00513613445 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2016
No. 15-20598

the court should have granted his request 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 substantial 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 proceedings”. 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 improper 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) with respect 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 rebut 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 Guidelines 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 

sentence 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: 07/28/2016
No. 15-20598

To the extent Sandoval’s challenge is to procedural reasonableness, it 

also fails. Assuming, arguendo, such a contention was adequately briefed, 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 AlmendarezTorres 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 illegalreentry 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 other issues, all of which are inadequately 

briefed: an 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 waived, see, 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