Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Reynaldo MALDONADO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-20
Citations: 584 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 14-50242
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Reynaldo MALDONADO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Reynaldo MALDONADO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50242
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 20, 2014.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office,' San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Reynaldo Maldonado-Gareia appeals the 37-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. Maldonado-Gareia challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence on the ground that it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that his sentence overstates the seriousness of his illegal reentry offense because the offense is essentially an international trespass and that the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based and results in the double counting of prior criminal convictions.
This court reviews sentences for "reasonableness," applying an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). "[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable." United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Although Maldonado-Gareia asserts that a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to a within-guidelines sentence that was imposed under § 2L1.2 because that Guideline lacks an empirical basis, he concedes that the issue is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir.2009).
Further, we have rejected the arguments that illegal reentry is merely an international trespass offense that is treated too harshly under § 2L1.2, see United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir.2006), and that a sentence im posed pursuant to § 2L1.2 is greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a)'s goals as a result of any double counting inherent in that Guideline, see Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31. Moreover, Maldonado-Garcia's dissatisfaction with the Sentencing Commission's decision to place significant emphasis on prior convictions in illegal reentry cases does not render his sentence, imposed in line with that policy, beyond the discretion of the district court. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.2008).
Finally, although Maldonado-Garcia argues that the guidelines range does not adequately account for his personal history and characteristics and that his sentence is greater than necessary to provide adequate deterrence and to protect the public, the record does not reflect that his within-guidelines sentence "does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, . gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or . represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors." United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009). Accordingly, he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines range sentence. See id.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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.