Court Opinion

ID: 9918588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-15 19:00:37.217951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:52.379216
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10436         Document: 00517032614             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/15/2024

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

                                       No. 23-10436                                    FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                           January 15, 2024
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Victor Manuel Valdez-Pardo,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-384-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Victor Manuel Valdez-Pardo appeals the 20-month above-guidelines
   term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal
   reentry. He challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence,
   arguing that it is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10436      Document: 00517032614           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/15/2024

                                     No. 23-10436

          Our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552
   U.S. 38, 51 (2007).       When reviewing a non-guidelines sentence for
   substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the circumstances,
   including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range, to determine
   whether, as a matter of substance, the sentencing factors in section 3553(a)
   support the sentence.” United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 400
   (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We “give
   due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a
   whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 401 (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted).
          The district court made an individualized assessment and concluded
   that the applicable guidelines range did not adequately take into account the
   § 3553(a) factors. Although Valdez-Pardo asserts that the district court gave
   too much weight to his criminal history, which included numerous unscored
   convictions, “the sentencing court is free to conclude that the applicable
   Guidelines range gives too much or too little weight to one or more factors,
   and may adjust the sentence accordingly under § 3553(a).” United States v.
   Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). Valdez-Pardo’s arguments amount to a disagreement
   with the district court’s weighing of the sentencing factors, which “is not a
   sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342
   (5th Cir. 2016). Although Valdez-Pardo’s 20-month term of imprisonment
   is six months greater than the top of the guidelines range, we have upheld
   much greater variances. See, e.g., United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 437, 441
   (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 708, 710 (5th Cir. 2006).
   Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the significant deference
   that is given to the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors,
   Valdez-Pardo’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gerezano-
   Rosales, 692 F.3d at 400-01.

                                          2
Case: 23-10436   Document: 00517032614         Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/15/2024

                                No. 23-10436

         The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                     3