United States v. Fransisco Lira-Trejo , 450 F. App'x 345 ( 2011 )

Case: 11-50179 Document: 00511653017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 2, 2011
No. 11-50179
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FRANSISCO JAVIER LIRA-TREJO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:09-CR-1590-1
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fransisco Javier Lira-Trejo appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He was
sentenced to 46 months in prison, within the applicable guidelines range of 46
to 57 months.
Lira-Trejo contends that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and
results in excessive sentences; that the age of the burglary conviction used to
enhance his sentence renders his sentence unreasonable; that his sentencing
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-50179 Document: 00511653017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2011
No. 11-50179
range overstates the seriousness of his illegal reentry offense, which he asserts
is simply an international trespass; and that the district court did not take into
account his history and characteristics. We review sentences for reasonableness,
employing a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and we presume that a
sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007).
The lack of empirical basis for § 2L1.2 does not necessarily render a
within-guidelines sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d
528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009). In a series of unpublished opinions, we have rejected
the argument that the staleness of a defendant’s prior conviction renders his
within-range sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez-Valencia,
401 F. App’x 888, 888-89 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ortiz-Arriaga, 355 F.
App’x 849, 849-50 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2133 (2010); United
States v. Gonzales-Torres, 288 F. App’x 927, 928-29 (5th Cir. 2008).
We likewise reject Lira-Trejo’s contention that unlawful reentry–a federal
felony carrying significant criminal penalties–is merely an international
trespass. See United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006).
Nor do we discern any improper weighing of the other factors cited by Lira-Trejo,
including his personal history and characteristics. See United States v.
Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). In short, the district
court considered Lira-Trejo’s arguments and the facts of the case before
concluding that a within-guidelines sentence was appropriate. Lira-Trejo’s mere
disagreement with the court’s assessment of those factors is insufficient to rebut
the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v.
Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2