Court Opinion

ID: 9841338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 00:00:38.599624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:53.637126
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20617         Document: 00516904182             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

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

                                       No. 22-20617
                                                                             FILED
                                                                     September 21, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Pedro Ivan Espino-Rosales,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:20-CR-631-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Pedro Ivan Espino-Rosales appeals his 36-month above-guideline
   sentence for illegal reentry by a previously deported noncitizen after a felony
   conviction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). Espino-Rosales argues
   that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because: (1) the district court
   did not account for sentencing disparities when issuing its ruling; (2) the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20617      Document: 00516904182            Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                      No. 22-20617

   district court failed to account for his personal history and characteristics,
   specifically his cultural assimilation; (3) the district court erred in considering
   his circumstances as a whole.
          This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under
   a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
   46-47, 49-51 (2007). 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).
          Espino-Rosales fails to show that the district court abused its
   discretion in varying above the sentencing guidelines. First, his sentencing
   disparity argument fails as it makes no comparison between his offense
   conduct, particular criminal history, aggravating or mitigating factors, and
   related conduct of other defendants who received lesser sentences.
   See United States v. Waguespack, 935 F.3d 322, 337 (5th Cir. 2019). Second,
   although a sentencing court need not give dispositive weight to a defendant’s
   cultural assimilation, see United States v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 231, 232, 234-
   35 (5th Cir. 2011), the record shows the district court considered Espino-
   Rosales’ cultural assimilation argument but found this factor to be
   outweighed by his criminal history and pattern of illegally reentering the
   country. Finally, though Espino-Rosales states otherwise, his argument that
   the court improperly balanced the factors in light of the circumstances as a
   whole ultimately suggests that the district court should have weighed the
   sentencing factors differently.      Disagreement with the district court’s
   weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is an insufficient ground for
   reversal. United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). In any

                                           2
Case: 22-20617      Document: 00516904182            Page: 3    Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                      No. 22-20617

   event, the record shows the court considered and weighed all the factors, and
   we give deference to its assessment of their import. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
          Espino-Rosales also argues that the district court committed a
   substantive error when it relied on erroneous facts, specifically the use of the
   words “every time,” “benefit” and “opportunities” when detailing his
   criminal history and illegal reentries. Because he did not raise this argument
   in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Coto-
   Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 586 (5th Cir. 2021).
          The court committed no clear or obvious error as the presentence
   report shows a pattern of unlawful entries followed by convictions for other
   offenses. Further, given the court’s consideration of the proper factors and
   the record, he has failed to demonstrate a “reasonable probability that, but
   for the [claimed] error, he would have received a lesser sentence.” United
   States v. Johnson, 943 F.3d 735, 738 (5th Cir. 2019).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3