IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50497

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ALEXANDER RAMOS-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-106-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Alexander Ramos-Martinez challenges the sentence imposed for his 

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that 

the within-guidelines sentence of 16 months of imprisonment and one year of 

supervised release was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals 

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

 

* 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

February 16, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50497 Document: 00514350215 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-50497

2

Because Ramos-Martinez did not object to the reasonableness of his 

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

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Ramos-Martinez 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, Ramos-Martinez 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 sentence falls within the properly calculated advisory 

guidelines ranges, it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United 

States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Ramos-Martinez 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 the arguments that Ramos-Martinez

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 

 Case: 17-50497 Document: 00514350215 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-50497

3

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. 

Further, Ramos-Martinez’s contention that his allegedly benign motives for 

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

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

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).

Ramos-Martinez 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

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-50497 Document: 00514350215 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/16/2018