IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50832

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERMENEGILDO MELCHOR-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-872-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hermenegildo Melchor-Garcia (Melchor) challenges his withinguidelines sentence of 53 months of imprisonment, which was imposed 

following his 8 U.S.C. § 1326 conviction of illegal reentry into the United States 

after deportation. He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Plain error review governs Melchor’s sentencing challenge as he did not 

object on this basis in the district court. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

 

* 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 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-50832 Document: 00513118198 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 13-50832

2

129, 135 (2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

“A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines 

range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 

F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The presumption of reasonableness “is rebutted 

only upon a showing that 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).

As Melchor acknowledges, his argument challenging the presumption of 

reasonableness due to the lack of an empirical basis for § 2L1.2 is foreclosed by 

this court’s precedent. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

357, 366-67 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2009). While Melchor now contends that the district 

court improperly analyzed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, he has not shown 

that the district court failed to give proper weight to any particular § 3553(a) 

factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or that his 

sentence represents a “clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” 

See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.

To the extent Melchor seeks to have this court reweigh the § 3553(a) 

factors, this court will not do so, as such an analysis would contravene the 

deferential review that applies in this context. See Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th 

Cir. 2008). Additionally, his contention that his offense is a mere international 

trespass has been rejected by this court. See United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 

460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Finally, the district court’s extensive reasons 

for the sentence are sufficient to support the imposition of the three-year term 

of supervised release in this instance. See United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 

F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2013).

 Case: 13-50832 Document: 00513118198 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 13-50832

3

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-50832 Document: 00513118198 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2015