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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50097

consolidated with 

No. 09-50098

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IGNACIO SOLIS-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:00-CR-1307-ALL

USDC No. 3:08-CR-2935-ALL

Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ignacio Solis-Garcia (Solis) illegally tried to reenter the Untied States

while on supervised release after imprisonment for a prior illegal-reentry

violation. He pleaded guilty to attempted illegal reentry after deportation, and

his supervised release was revoked. Solis was sentenced to a 60-month prison

term for illegal reentry, which was 14 months above the guidelines range. For

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 2, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-50097 c/w

No. 09-50098

2

violating the terms of his supervised release, Solis received a consecutive 24-

month sentence, which was within the guidelines range. Solis challenges the

above-guidelines sentence for illegal reentry, arguing that it is unreasonable

because, he says, it is greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of

sentencing.

Because Solis does not argue that the sentence resulted from procedural

error, we examine only the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007); United States v.

Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). We give the district court’s sentence

a high degree of deference because a sentencing court is in the best position to

find facts and weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in relation to a particular

defendant. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597-98; United States v. Campos-Maldonado,

531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008). Solis did not

object in the district court to the reasonableness of the sentence; thus, our review

is for plain error. United States v. Whitelaw, ___F.3d ____, No. 08-50346, 2009

WL 2515670, at *2 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d

389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2959 (2008).

The district court carefully weighed the § 3553(a) factors and articulated

sufficiently compelling reasons to justify the above-guidelines sentence. See

United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). It considered and

discussed all of Solis’s arguments for a within-guidelines sentence. The court

determined, however, that these factors were outweighed by the need to deter

Solis from continuing to reenter the United States illegally, especially given that

this was Solis’s fourth conviction for illegal reentry and that his entire family

lives in this country, making recidivism more likely. Although Solis might

disagree with the weight that the court gave to the relevant sentencing factors,

this disagreement is far from sufficient to establish that the court plainly erred.

Cf. id. at 78 (noting that a non-guidelines sentence is unreasonable where,
No. 09-50097 c/w

No. 09-50098

3

among other things, the district court commits a “clear error of judgment in

balancing the sentencing factors”). Therefore, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.