Court Opinion

ID: 9948411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 23:00:36.906354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:33.272249
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10479            Document: 74-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/06/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-10479
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                  March 6, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Gustavo Adolfo Ramirez-Leos,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:21-CR-294-1
                   ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Gustavo Adolfo Ramirez-Leos appeals the 60-month, above-
guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal
reentry. He argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because:
(1) the district court failed to adequately weigh the fact that his prior felony
assaults causing bodily injury were reduced to misdemeanors; (2) those

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10479        Document: 74-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/06/2024

                                  No. 23-10479

offense reductions suggest that the factual account of those assaults provided
in the presentence report (PSR) might not have been accurate; and (3) the
district court gave insufficient weight to the guidelines range.
       “This court reviews a properly preserved claim of substantive
unreasonableness for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24
F.4th 477, 480-81 (5th Cir. 2022). By arguing that an upward variance was
unwarranted, Ramirez-Leos preserved his claim that a sentence longer than
the guidelines range is substantively unreasonable. Holguin-Hernandez v.
United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020). Likewise, he preserved his claim
that the district court gave insufficient weight to the fact that his prior
assaults had been reduced to misdemeanors by bringing those reductions to
the court’s attention. See Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th at 481. As for his argument
that the reductions suggest that the PSR’s description of the assaults may
have been incorrect, we need not determine whether he preserved that claim
because he cannot prevail even under the abuse of discretion standard.
United States v. Holguin-Hernandez, 955 F.3d 519, 520 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020).
       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 the
sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support the sentence. United States
v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. 2012). We “give due
deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on [the]
whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 401 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
       In this case, the district court made an individualized assessment and
concluded that the guidelines range did not adequately take into account
certain of the § 3553(a) factors. In reaching that determination, the district
court noted that Ramirez-Leos had been formally removed from this country

                                       2
Case: 23-10479        Document: 74-1        Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/06/2024

                                  No. 23-10479

on three occasions and had voluntarily departed on another three occasions.
In addition, the district court highlighted Ramirez-Leos’s prior violence
against women, specifically his sister and his pregnant girlfriend. The district
court also considered his other criminal history as well, which included
burglary, theft, stealing a car, and evading arrest.
       Although the district court did acknowledge that Ramirez-Leos’s
assaults against his sister and his pregnant girlfriend had been reduced to
misdemeanors, the court emphasized the violent nature of those offenses.
Notably, the district court’s understanding was based on the factual accounts
of the assaults provided in the PSR, which were sufficiently reliable because
they were based on the results of a police investigation and supported by
interviews with the victims. See United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213, 220
(5th Cir. 2014). Because Ramirez-Leos did not offer any testimony or other
evidence to rebut those factual recitations in the PSR, the district court was
entitled to rely on them without further inquiry. See id.
       In addition, contrary to Ramirez-Leos’s assertions, even though the
guidelines range had already taken his criminal history into account, “giving
extra weight to circumstances already incorporated in the guidelines . . . is
within the discretion” of the district court. United States v. Key, 599 F.3d
469, 475 (5th Cir. 2010). In light of the district court’s assessment of
Ramirez-Leos’s criminal history, the district court was free to conclude that
the guidelines range gave insufficient weight to the need for deterrence and
to protect the public, and other § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Williams,
517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 2008).
       In short, Ramirez-Leos’s arguments ultimately boil down to a
disagreement with how the district court weighed the statutory sentencing
factors. However, the “argument that these factors should have been
weighed differently is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v.

                                        3
Case: 23-10479        Document: 74-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/06/2024

                                  No. 23-10479

Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). Moreover, although the 60-month
sentence imposed here was 33 months longer than the 27 months at the top
of his revised guidelines range, this court has affirmed similar variances. See,
e.g., United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 705-06 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming
60-month sentence when top of the guidelines range was 27 months).
       The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                       4