Court Opinion

ID: 9880961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 23:27:11.929232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:58:04.150990
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10135        Document: 00516913230             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10135
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                             September 28, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Pablo Olalde-Suarez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:21-CR-407-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Pablo Olalde-Suarez appeals, as substantively unreasonable, his 48-
   month, within-guidelines range sentence for illegal reentry by a deported
   alien. Olalde-Suarez advocated for a sentence below the guidelines range
   because, he argued, his age and an undischarged 25-year state sentence to be
   served before his federal sentence would effectively result in life

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10135      Document: 00516913230          Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/28/2023

                                    No. 23-10135

   imprisonment. He contends that the district court’s decision to reduce his
   sentence by only three months from the top of the guidelines range of 41 to
   51 months represented a clear error in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a)
   factors because the court’s expressed appreciation of his mitigation
   arguments cannot rationally be squared with such a small reduction.
          We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
   discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 56 (2007). Olalde-
   Suarez’s within-guidelines range sentence is presumed to be substantively
   reasonable. See United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 741 F.3d 289, 295 (5th Cir.
   2013). To rebut that presumption, he must show that his sentence fails to
   take in to account a factor that should receive significant weight, gives
   significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear
   error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See id.
          Olalde-Suarez fails to make the requisite showing. The mere fact that
   the district court did not reduce his sentence to the degree requested does
   not mean that it did not take his mitigation arguments into account; to the
   contrary, it expressly did so. However, the court also considered Olalde-
   Suarez’s extensive criminal history and multiple prior illegal reentries as a
   counterweight to his mitigation arguments. In settling on a 48-month
   sentence, the court cited a number of § 3553(a) factors, including Olalde-
   Suarez’s history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the
   offense, and the need to provide just punishment, promote respect for the
   law, and afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. See § 3553(a)(1),
   (a)(2)(A)-(B). That Olalde-Suarez disagrees with the balancing of the factors
   does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United
   States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir. 2016).
          The judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2