Court Opinion

ID: 9951418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 00:00:43.068998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:06.108213
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10866         Document: 58-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                 ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                  No. 23-10866
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                            March 15, 2024
                                Summary Calendar
                                ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                        versus

Leoncio G. Aguilar,

                                          Defendant—Appellant.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:19-CR-41-5
                 ______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
        Leoncio G. Aguilar appeals the 24-month, above-guidelines sentence
imposed after the district court revoked his term of supervised release. He
contends the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
court based his sentence on improper factors, namely the need to reflect the

        _____________________
       *
           Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-10866        Document: 58-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                  No. 23-10866

seriousness of his underlying violations, impose just punishment for his
conduct, and promote respect for the law, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A).
Aguilar further argues that his advisory guidelines range of imprisonment was
appropriate, and the district court erred in balancing the statutory sentencing
factors. He also challenges the extent of the district court’s upward variance.
       Although Aguilar’s request for a lower sentence and objection that his
sentence was substantively unreasonable were sufficient to preserve a general
substantive reasonableness claim, see Holguin-Hernandez v. United States,
140 S. Ct. 762, 766-77 (2020), they were not sufficient to preserve the
specific claim that the district court impermissibly considered the
§ 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, see United States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 425 (5th Cir.
2020). Therefore, we will review this argument for plain error only. See id.;
see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
       Aguilar admitted that he possessed a controlled substance, namely
cocaine; thus, he violated the mandatory condition of his supervised release
that prohibited the unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Aguilar’s
revocation was therefore mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). See United
States v. Illies, 805 F.3d 607, 609 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Headrick,
963 F.2d 777, 779 (5th Cir. 1992). In any event, the record does not reflect
that the § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors were dominant factors in imposing Aguilar’s
sentence. See United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (5th Cir. 2015);
United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011); see also United States
v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 684 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2018). Furthermore, the record
demonstrates that the court considered Aguilar’s conduct of reentering the
United States following deportation in the context of “his propensity to
commit future crimes and/or threaten public safety,” which are “permissible
purposes of a revocation sentence,” Sanchez, 900 F.3d at 685; see also
§ 3553(a)(2)(B)-(C). Aguilar has failed to show that the district court
committed a clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

                                        2
Case: 23-10866       Document: 58-1        Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                 No. 23-10866

       Next, inasmuch as Aguilar argues that his advisory guidelines range
was appropriate and the district court erred in balancing the statutory
sentencing factors, we review his preserved argument for an abuse of
discretion. See Holguin-Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at 766; Sanchez, 900 F.3d 685.
The record does not demonstrate that the district court erred in balancing
the applicable § 3553(a) factors, and we will not reweigh the factors. See
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Finally, Aguilar
fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 24-
month sentence, as his sentence is well within the range of upward variances
that we have previously affirmed. See, e.g., United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d
491, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2012).
       The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                       3