Court Opinion

ID: 9392070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 00:00:27.786386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:40.795438
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20601        Document: 00516737241             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/03/2023

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

                                      No. 22-20601
                                                                                            FILED
                                                                                         May 3, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Diego Perez-Escobar,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-303-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Diego Perez-Escobar pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United
   States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), and was sentenced to a
   within-guidelines term of 51 months’ imprisonment. He now appeals the
   substantive reasonableness of that sentence.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20601        Document: 00516737241             Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/03/2023

                                        No. 22-20601

           We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a
   deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. 1 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
   51 (2007). “If the sentencing judge exercises her discretion to impose a
   sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range, in our reasonableness
   review we will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair
   sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,
   519 (5th Cir. 2005). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly
   calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
   Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
           Perez-Escobar has not rebutted the presumption that his 51-month
   within-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. See United States v.
   Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court considered his
   arguments for a downward departure and determined that a within-
   guidelines sentence was appropriate. Perez-Escobar has not shown that the
   sentence fails to “account for a factor that should [have] receive[d]
   significant weight,” gives “significant weight to an irrelevant or improper
   factor,” or “represents a clear error of judgment in balancing [the]
   sentencing factors.” Id. While Perez-Escobar’s sentence is significantly
   longer than his previous illegal-reentry sentence, this is because the prior
   illegal-reentry conviction and an intervening drug-offense conviction greatly
   increased his total offense level and his criminal history category. His
   arguments amount to a disagreement with the propriety of the sentence and
   the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors. This is insufficient to
   rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d
   390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
           AFFIRMED.
           _____________________
           1
              Perez-Escobar preserved his challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his
   sentence by moving for a downward departure. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States,
   140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020).

                                                  2