Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose TORRES-DUENAS, Also Known as Joe Angel Torres, Also Known as Leonardo Duenia-Torres, Also Known as Leonard Torres, Also Known as Joe Torres, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-24
Citations: 481 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 11-50287
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose TORRES-DUENAS, Also Known as Joe Angel Torres, Also Known as Leonardo Duenia-Torres, Also Known as Leonard Torres, Also Known as Joe Torres, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 231–231

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose TORRES-DUENAS, Also Known as Joe Angel Torres, Also Known as Leonardo Duenia-Torres, Also Known as Leonard Torres, Also Known as Joe Torres, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50287
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 24, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Torres-Duenas appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. The seventy-one-month sentence was within the properly calculated guidelines range and is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Torres-Duenas's contention that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply because the applicable guideline is not founded on empirical data is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.2009). His disagreement with the district court's weighing of the sentencing factors does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir.2010). His contention that a federal court may not order a sentence to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-determined state sentence is foreclosed by Setser v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 1466-73, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012).
The district court imposed a reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Because there was no error, plain or otherwise, with regard to the sentence, the judgment 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.