Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul MOSQUEDA, also known as Raul Ramirez Mosqueda, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-12
Citations: 437 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 10-20642
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul MOSQUEDA, also known as Raul Ramirez Mosqueda, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 312–312

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul MOSQUEDA, also known as Raul Ramirez Mosqueda, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-20642
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 12, 2011.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lourdes Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raul Mosqueda appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to being in the United States illegally after deportation. The 24-month sentence was a non-Guidelines variance above the advisory sentencing range of six to 12 months. Mosqueda contends that it was unreasonable.
A district court's decision whether and by how much to deviate from the advisory Guidelines range is entitled to deference in light of its superior position to find facts, make credibility determinations, and gain "insights not conveyed by the record." Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court." Id.
Mosqueda asserts that the court improperly weighed the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and his criminal history. By doing so, he implicitly argues for de novo review and asks this court to reweigh the sentencing factors in his favor. This is precisely contrary to the prescribed review for abuse of discretion. See id. (mandating "due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance"). The district court cited fact-specific reasons for the sentence, and its reasons adequately reflected consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors. Moreover, this court has affirmed similar or greater degrees of variance. See, e.g., United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir.2008) (upholding an upward variance to 180 months from an advisory maximum of 51 months). Accordingly, the sentence was reasonable and should not be disturbed. See id.
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.