Court Opinion

ID: 9411228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 00:00:50.731674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.508215
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11068        Document: 00516832970             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/25/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-11068
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     July 25, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jose Fernando Martinez-Hernandez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CR-41-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jose Martinez-Hernandez pleaded guilty of illegal reentry after re-
   moval in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) and was sentenced to
   46 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release.
         On appeal, Martinez-Hernandez first contends that this within-
   guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable. We review the substan-

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11068      Document: 00516832970         Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/25/2023

   tive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United
   States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence imposed within a properly
   calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
   Neba, 901 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2018). Before imposing a within-guidelines
   sentence, the district court considered the advisory guidelines range,
   Martinez-Hernandez’s arguments for a sentence at the bottom of the guide-
   line range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.         Although Martinez-
   Hernandez claims that the sentence did not adequately take into account
   personal history and circumstances, Martinez-Hernandez has failed to dem-
   onstrate “‘that the district court did not consider a sentencing factor that
   should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to a factor it
   should have discounted, or made a clear error of judgment when it balanced
   the relevant factors.’” United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 412
   (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-De la Fuente, 842 F.3d
   371, 374 (5th Cir. 2016)). Because Martinez-Hernandez has not rebutted the
   presumption of reasonableness that attached to the within-guidelines sen-
   tence, Martinez-Hernandez has failed to demonstrate that the sentence is
   substantively unreasonable. See Neba, 901 F.3d at 263.
          Additionally, Martinez-Hernandez maintains that the sentence ex-
   ceeds the statutory maximum and is therefore unconstitutional because it was
   enhanced based on facts that were neither alleged in the indictment nor found
   by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Martinez-Hernandez acknowledges that
   this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
   224 (1998), but seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.
   Subsequent decisions such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and
   Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-
   Torres. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553−54 (5th Cir. 2019).
   Thus, Martinez-Hernandez is correct that this argument is foreclosed.
          The judgment is AFFIRMED.