United States v. Antonio Huerta-Gutierrez ( 2015 )

Case: 14-50685 Document: 00512973329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-50685
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 18, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ANTONIO HUERTA-GUTIERREZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CR-1437-1
Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Antonio Huerta-Gutierrez appeals the 51-month within-guideline
sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United
States after deportation. We review sentences for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007);
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). Generally, we first determine
whether the district court committed any “significant procedural error, such as
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-50685 Document: 00512973329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2015
No. 14-50685
failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating
the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We then
consider “substantive reasonableness . . . under an abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Id. The 51-month sentence is undisputedly within the properly
calculated guideline range and is thus presumed reasonable. See United States
v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).
Huerta-Gutierrez nonetheless contends that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve
federal sentencing goals. He argues that the illegal-reentry Guidelines lack an
empirical basis so that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of
reasonableness; but he acknowledges that the argument is foreclosed by
United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357,366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).
Otherwise, his mere disagreement with the district court's assessment of the
sentencing factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.
See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
Huerta-Gutierrez has not shown that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2