Court Opinion

ID: 9366811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-28 01:00:21.353447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.324074
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60331        Document: 00516625844             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/27/2023

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

                                     ____________                                FILED
                                                                          January 27, 2023
                                      No. 22-60331                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Marco Antonio Aviles-Aviles,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-81-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Defendant-Appellant Marco Antonio Aviles-Aviles pleaded guilty to
   the crime of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district
   court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of two years in prison—an
   upward variance from the advisory guidelines range of 0-6 months in prison.
   Aviles-Aviles asserts on appeal that this sentence is substantively

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60331      Document: 00516625844           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/27/2023

                                     No. 22-60331

   unreasonable because the district court erred in balancing the 18 U.S.C. §
   3553(a) sentencing factors.
          An above-guidelines sentence may be unreasonable “if it (1) does not
   account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives
   significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear
   error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v.
   Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). We consider—but do not reweigh—the sentencing factors
   set forth in § 3553(a) when reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence. Gall
   v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46-47 (2007). 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 51.
          Aviles-Aviles fails to establish that the district court abused its
   discretion in imposing an above-guidelines sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-
   53. The record shows that the district court assessed the facts and arguments
   of the parties to determine that a sentence within the advisory guidelines
   range would not achieve the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). The district court
   provided ample justification for imposing a variance: The court adopted the
   presentence report, weighed the guidelines range and sentencing factors, and
   specifically noted the seriousness of the offense and Aviles-Aviles’s history
   and characteristics. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir.
   2015) (“Even a significant variance from the Guidelines does not constitute
   an abuse of discretion if it is commensurate with the individualized, case
   specific reasons provided by the district court.”).
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2