### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 8

- 50513 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. GEOVANNY ANTONIO LOYOLA

- VILLEGAS, also known as Loyola Geovanny Anto Villegas, also known as Giovanny Loyola, also known as Geovanny Antonioloyo Villegas, also known as Geovanny Antoni Villegasloyola, also known as Geovanny Anton Loyola

- Villegas, also known as Geov anny Loyolavillegas, also known as Geovanny Loyola, also known as Geovanny A. Loyola

- Villegas , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:18

- CR

- 48

- 1

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Geovanny Antonio Loyola

- Villegas ple a d ed guilty to illegal reentry into the United States. The district court sentenced him to 24 month s of imprisonment. This sentence was within the range prescri bed by the United

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 12, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50513 Document: 00514914606 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2019No. 1 8

- 50513

2 States Sentencing Guidelines. Loyola

- Villegas now appeals, arguing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing go als listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

. Because Loyola

- Villegas did not object t o the substantive reasonableness of his sentence in the district court , plain error review applies. 1 See United States v. Heard , 709 F.3d 413, 425 (5th Cir. 2013)

. Loyola

- Villegas ’s sentence is presumptively reasonable bec ause it fell within h is advisory G uidelines range
. See id. at 4 24

. “ The presumption 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 im proper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. ” Id. at 424

- 25 (quoting United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009)). Loyola

- Villegas argues that his sentence overstates the seriousness of his offe nse and his dangerousness because § 2L1.2 overemphasizes a defendant’s criminal history by “ double counting ” prior convictions , factoring them into both the offense level and the criminal history calculation. He further contends that the sentence fails to reflect his personal history and characteristics . Finally, he argues that the then

- impending arrival of his first child changed his outlook on life and provided him a reason to stay in Mexico ; thus, the sentence is grea ter than necessary to provide adequate deterrence and to protect the American public.

1 For the sake of preserving the issue, Loyola

- Villegas challenges the standard of review, arguing that other circuits review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Likewise, Loyola

- Villegas also wishes t o preserve his argument that a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to a within

- Guidelines sentence calculated under § 2L1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines because § 2L1.2 is not the result of empirical evidence or study. As Loyola

- Villegas conced es, these arguments are foreclosed by our precedent and we therefore do not address them. See Heard , 709 F.3d at 425; United States v. Rodriguez , 660 F.3d 231, 232

- 33 (5th Cir. 2011). Case: 18-50513 Document: 00514914606 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2019No. 1 8

- 50513

3 We have rejected the argument that a sentence based on § 2L1.2 is substantively unreasonable because § 2L1.2 counts a defendant’s criminal history twice

. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529

- 31 (5th Cir. 2009). As for Loyola

- Villegas ’s remaining arguments , the record makes clear that the district court reviewed the presentence report, the § 3553(a) factors, and Loyola

- Villegas’s criminal history. Loyola

- V illegas has not shown that his sentence reflects an improper balancing of the sentencing factors. Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez

- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565

- 66 (5th Cir. 2008)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 18-50513 Document: 00514914606 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2019