Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando Antonio ESCAMILLA-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-09
Citations: 674 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 16-50269 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando Antonio ESCAMILLA-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando Antonio ESCAMILLA-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-50269 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 9, 2017
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane D. Kirstein, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Kristin Michelle Kimmelman, 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 JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Rolando Antonio Escamilla-Romero appeals the within-guidelines, 57-month sentence imposed for his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a).
We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Escamilla-Romero's arguments fail to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court, which was "in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a)," was aware of Escamilla-Rome-ro's mitigating contentions, but it imposed a sentence within the guidelines range. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. We have rejected the argument that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2's double-counting of a prior conviction in the calculation of a defendant's offense level and criminal history score necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable. United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). We have also rejected challenges based on substantive reasonableness grounded in alleged lack of seriousness of illegal reentry. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Finally, as Escamilla-Romero concedes, his argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not be applied to his sentence because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 530-31; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).
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.