Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Juan SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-27
Citations: 325 F. App'x 398
Docket Number: No. 08-50697
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Juan SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Juan SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50697
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 27, 2009.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Horatio R. Aldredge, IV, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Juan Sandoval appeals from his conviction of illegal reentry following deportation. He contends that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because it was calculated pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which he argues is not supported by empirical evidence. He further contends that his sentence is unreasonable even if a presumption of reasonableness is applicable.
Sandoval's contention that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because the relevant guideline is not supported by empirical evidence is without merit. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.2009). Sandoval's sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Moreover, the district court addressed the factors set out at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)— particularly the need to deter Sandoval from committing future offenses—when imposing the sentence. Sandoval has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.