IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50059

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIO CESAR HERNANDEZ-ARCHILA, also known as Julio Cesar 

Hernandez-Archilla,

Defendant-Appellant

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidated with: 17-50071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JULIO CESAR HERNANDEZ-ARCHILA,

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-1410-1

USDC No. 3:16-CR-1699-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50059 Document: 00514226365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2017
No. 17-50059

c/w No. 17-50071

2

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

In these consolidated appeals, Julio Cesar Hernandez-Archila challenges 

(1) the 21-month term of imprisonment imposed for his conviction of illegal 

reentry of the United States after deportation, and (2) the consecutive 18-

month term of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of his 

supervised release for a prior illegal reentry offense. He argues that the 

combined sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and therefore is substantively unreasonable.

Because Hernandez-Archila did not object to the reasonableness of his 

sentences in the district court, we will review for plain error. See United States 

v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 

F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Hernandez-Archila notes that there is a 

circuit split on the issue whether the failure to object to the reasonableness of 

a sentence requires plain error review, and he raises the issue to preserve it 

for further review. 

To demonstrate plain error, Hernandez-Archila must show a forfeited 

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett 

v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we 

have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. 

Because the sentences fall within their respective guidelines ranges,

they are entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States 

v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 

 

* 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: 17-50059 Document: 00514226365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2017
No. 17-50059

c/w No. 17-50071

3

526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). Hernandez-Archila argues that the sentence 

imposed for his illegal reentry offense should not be accorded a presumption of 

reasonableness because the applicable Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not 

empirically based. However, he concedes that his argument is foreclosed. See

United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States 

v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). He raises the 

issue to preserve it for further review.

In previous cases, we have rejected several of the arguments that 

Hernandez-Archila raises on appeal. We have not been persuaded by the 

contention that § 2L1.2’s lack of an empirical foundation necessarily renders 

its application unreasonable. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67. 

Nor have we been persuaded that the offense of illegal reentry is treated too 

harshly under § 2L1.2 because it is in essence an international trespass. See 

United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). We have 

rejected the contention that § 2L1.2’s double-counting of a defendant’s criminal 

history necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 

529-31. Additionally, Hernandez-Archila’s challenge to the district court’s 

decision to run his revocation sentence consecutively to his illegal reentry 

sentence is unpersuasive given that the Sentencing Guidelines recommend

that a revocation sentence of imprisonment be imposed to run consecutively to 

any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 7B1.3(f), p.s.

Further, the record reflects that the district court considered, but 

rejected, Hernandez-Archila’s argument that his desire to reunite with his 

family in the United States, and especially his concern for his ill mother, 

warranted leniency. Hernandez-Archila’s contention that his benign motives 

for returning to the United States warranted a lesser sentence is unavailing. 

 Case: 17-50059 Document: 00514226365 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2017
No. 17-50059

c/w No. 17-50071

4

See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Hernandez-Archila’s arguments amount to a request for this court to reweigh 

the sentencing factors, which we will not do. See United States v. McElwee, 

646 F.3d 328, 344 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Hernandez-Archila has not shown that the district court failed to 

consider any significant factors, gave undue weight to any improper factors, or 

clearly erred in balancing the sentencing factors; thus, he has not rebutted the 

presumption of reasonableness. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Accordingly, the

judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-50059 Document: 00514226365 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/06/2017