Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Dolores RAMIREZ-MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-25
Citations: 509 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 12-30298
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Dolores RAMIREZ-MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 509
Pages: 297–299

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Dolores RAMIREZ-MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30298
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 25, 2013.
Robert Benjamin Weir, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Car ol Loupe Michel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robin Elise Sehulberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Valerie Welz Jusselin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Dolores Ramirez-Maldonado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of a removed alien. He was sentenced to 84 months in prison, above the advisory range of 46 to 57 months. The district court justified the sentence as a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) or a departure from the Guidelines.
Ramirez-Maldonado argues that his 84-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because his convictions for aggravated robbery and murder were used to calculate both his offense level and criminal history. With respect to his specific double-counting argument, Ramirez-Maldonado has not shown any error, as courts may consider factors already accounted for by the Guidelines in determining a sentence outside the recommended range. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349-50 (5th Cir.2008). We defer to the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors justify the extent of the upward variance. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Ramirez-Maldonado's arguments amount to a mere disagreement with the district court and do not warrant reversal. See id.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.