Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan DIAZ-REBOLLAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-02
Citations: 668 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 15-51160 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan DIAZ-REBOLLAR, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 586–586

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan DIAZ-REBOLLAR, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-51160 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 09/02/2016
Margaret Mary Embry, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Diaz-Rebollar challenges the 60-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the non-guidelines sentence, which is above the advisory guidelines range of 21 to 27 months, is unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
This court reviews the sentence for substantive reasonableness under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In Diaz-Rebollar's case, the district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines sentence, allowed the parties to present argument, and considered the § 3553(a) factors in light of his personal characteristics, criminal history, and the need for the sentence to deter criminal conduct. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 53, 128 S.Ct. 586; § 3553(a). Additionally, this court has upheld above-guidelines sentences of similar or greater magnitudes. See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433, 442 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Daughenbaugh, 49 F.3d 171, 174-75 (5th Cir. 1995).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4.