United States v. Huerta-Tobon ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10976 Document: 00515898172 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 14, 2021
No. 20-10976 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Huerta-Tobon,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:20-CR-31-1
Before Willett, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Huerta-Tobon challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
24-month prison sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal
reentry after deportation from the United States. “We review the substantive
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10976 Document: 00515898172 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2021
No. 20-10976
reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion.” United States v.
Nguyen, 854 F.3d 276, 283 (5th Cir. 2017).
The district court gave ample consideration to all of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, as well as the arguments presented by counsel, and
ultimately concluded that Huerta-Tobon’s criminal history and prior lenient
sentences warranted an upward variance. Huerta-Tobon’s arguments, which
focus on the “staleness” of his previous convictions, amount to no more than
a request for us to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors. We will not do so, as “the
sentencing court is in a better position to find facts and judge their import
under the § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular defendant.” United
States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). Overall, we cannot say that
the district court, in its “extensive consideration and explanation of the
appropriate sentence in light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors,” failed to
account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
significant weight to an improper factor, or clearly erred in its balancing of
the sentencing factors. Id. at 726.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
2