Opinion ID: 627196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the district court's sentence was unreasonable?

Text: According to the PSR, Vasquez's Guideline's sentencing range was 121-151 months and the statutory range was 120 months to life. The district court sentenced Vasquez to 125 months, explaining that it sentenced Vasquez to five months above the statutory and Guidelines minimum because of the large quantity of cocaine involved and the fact that Vasquez was convicted on three separate counts. Vasquez argues that his sentence was procedurally erroneous because the number of counts of conviction is an improper consideration for a district court. However, Vasquez cites no binding precedent for the proposition that a district court may not consider the number of counts of conviction. Thus, Vasquez has not established plain error. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir.2009) (error not plain where argument is novel and unsupported by circuit precedent). Vasquez also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court failed to adhere to the principle that a district court shall impose a sentence, sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that a sentence above the Guidelines minimum violates this principle because there is nothing to indicate that a sentence above the Guideline minimum was necessary to meet the objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We disagree. Vasquez's argument would do away with the presumption of reasonableness that we accord to within-Guidelines sentences. See United States v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 231, 233 (5th Cir.2011). It is not the government's burden to justify the reasonableness of a within-Guidelines sentence. Rather, it is the defendant's burden to rebut the presumption that such a sentence is reasonable. See id.