Court Opinion

ID: 9881807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 00:00:28.98318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:08.334681
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10120         Document: 00516919069             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/03/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10120
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                October 3, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Castro,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CR-477-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Castro appeals his 120-month, above-
   guidelines sentence for illegally reentering the United States following a prior
   removal, contending that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because
   it represents a clear error of balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See
   United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). The crux of

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10120      Document: 00516919069          Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/03/2023

                                    No. 23-10120

   Rodriguez-Castro’s challenge is that the district court overstated the
   seriousness of his prior convictions for indecent exposure and driving while
   intoxicated (DWI) in determining that an above-guidelines sentence was
   warranted. See § 3553(a)(2)(B)-(C). We review a preserved objection to a
   sentence’s substantive reasonableness for an abuse of discretion, examining
   the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 56
   (2007).
          Rodriguez-Castro fails to show that the district court’s assessment of
   his criminal history was an abuse of discretion.          Specifically, it is not
   implausible that members of the public, including children, could have been
   exposed to his indecent act or that his driving drunk posed a substantial risk
   of danger to the public if he were to repeat that conduct. See id.; see also
   United States v. Botello-Zepeda, 933 F.3d 452, 455 (5th Cir. 2019) (affirming
   upward variance based on prior DWI convictions where a concern for public
   safety was the primary factor). Further, the district court’s decision to vary
   upward was also based on Rodriguez-Castro’s prior conviction for family
   violence assault and his numerous prior illegal reentries, the characterization
   of which Rodriguez-Castro does not challenge.
          Rodriguez-Castro’s reliance on United States v. Hoffman, 901 F.3d 523
   (5th Cir. 2018), is unavailing, as are his related arguments. The district court
   implicitly considered the reasons why the presentence report (PSR)
   calculated an advisory range of 51 to 63 months by adopting the PSR, and it
   expressly stated it had considered the guidelines range in determining the
   sentence. Moreover, that the guidelines range already took into account his
   prior illegal reentries and one of his DWI convictions does not render the
   sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th
   Cir. 2008); see also Smith, 440 F.3d at 708 (noting that a court may consider
   criminal history when imposing a non-guidelines sentence). Given the

                                          2
Case: 23-10120     Document: 00516919069          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/03/2023

                                   No. 23-10120

   deference owed the district court’s determination, see Gall, 552 U.S. at 51,
   Rodriguez-Castro’s 120-month sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
         AFFIRMED.

                                        3