United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50036

consolidated with

No. 20-50037

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Marcos Tulio Choc-Uselo, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-2132-1

USDC No. 2:18-CR-2613-1

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Marcos Tulio Choc-Uselo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, and the 

district court sentenced him to an above-Guidelines prison term of 30 months 

* Pursuantto 5TH CIRCUIT Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set 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 CIRCUIT Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 18, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50036 Document: 00515570683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2020
No. 20-50036

c/w No. 50037

2

and also imposed a three-year term of supervised release. Choc-Uselo was on 

supervised release at the time of his illegal reentry offense, and the district 

court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a consecutive term 

of six months of imprisonment. 

Choc-Uselo makes two arguments on appeal:

First, he contends that the district court imposed a substantively 

unreasonable prison sentence because it failed to balance the circumstances 

underlying his criminal history with the nature of the instant offense. He 

contends that his criminal history is attributable to his arrival in the United 

States as a juvenile without adult supervision.

At sentencing, Choc-Uselo explained the nature of his juvenile 

criminal history, emphasizing the lack of adult supervision when he entered 

the United States. However, the district court emphasized the seriousness of 

the instant illegal reentry offense and, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors, such as the need to promote respect for the law and Choc-Uselo’s

personal characteristics, found the Guidelines range (10–16 months) to be 

inadequate. The district court noted that Choc-Uselo committed the illegal 

reentry while on supervised release after serving a 24-month sentence for a 

previous illegal reentry offense. The court determined that for purposes of 

respect for the law and deterrence, a sentence between 10–16 months was 

inappropriate. 

Choc-Uselo has not shown that the district court, when imposing 

sentence, failed to consider a significant factor, considered an improper 

factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the relevant factors. See 

United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). His mere 

disagreement with the sentence imposed does not warrant reversal. See 

United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). Therefore, ChocUselo has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by imposing 

Case: 20-50036 Document: 00515570683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2020
No. 20-50036

c/w No. 50037

3

a substantively unreasonable variance. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007); Diehl, 775 F.3d at 724.

Second, Choc-Uselo argues that the district court abused its 

discretion when it ordered his revocation sentence to run consecutively to his 

illegal reentry sentence. He contends that the district court failed to consider 

the § 3553(a) sentencing factors in its decision, specifically whether 

consecutive sentences resulted in a sentence greater than necessary to 

achieve the goals of § 3553(a). 

The district court noted its consideration of the Chapter Seven policy 

statements when it imposed its sentence. Although it did not explicitly 

mention its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, it implicitly considered 

them by referring to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. See United States v. 

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, only moments before the 

revocation sentencing, the same judge had engaged in a more extensive 

sentencing proceeding with the same parties, and therefore, having just 

presided over a full sentencing proceeding for his new offense, the district 

court was well aware of how the § 3553(a) factors related to Choc-Uselo. See

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. B, intro. comment; United States 

v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Choc-Uselo has 

not demonstrated that the district court erred by failing to consider the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors when imposing consecutive sentences. See 

Gonzales, 250 F.3d at 927–28.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-50036 Document: 00515570683 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/18/2020