United States v. Bernardo Macias-Ortiz ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-50449      Document: 00513321918         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/28/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 15-50449                         December 28, 2015
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    BERNARDO MACIAS-ORTIZ,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:14-CR-2363-1
    Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Bernardo Macias-Ortiz argues that the 46-month within-guidelines
    sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea convictions for
    attempted illegal reentry and improper use of another’s passport was greater
    than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including adequate
    deterrence, that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based, that § 2L1.2 double-
    counted his criminal history, and that the 16-level enhancement for his prior
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50449     Document: 00513321918    Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/28/2015
    No. 15-50449
    burglary conviction was too severe. He further asserts that his illegal reentry
    did not pose a danger to others. Finally, he argues that the advisory guidelines
    range does not reflect his cultural assimilation.
    Because Macias-Ortiz objected to the reasonableness of the sentence
    based on the grounds of cultural assimilation and the lack of an empirical basis
    in § 2L1.2 in the district court, he preserved these issues for appellate review.
    See United States v. Peltier, 
    505 F.3d 389
    , 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Although he
    did not assert the other grounds he now raises, we will review the sentence for
    reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard because his within-
    guidelines sentence can be affirmed under either a plain-error or an abuse-of-
    discretion standard of review.
    Although Macias-Ortiz argues that this court should not apply the
    presumption of reasonableness because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis, he
    concedes that this argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United
    States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 
    564 F.3d 357
    , 366 (5th Cir. 2009). We have
    rejected the argument that § 2L1.2 improperly double counts prior convictions.
    See 
    id. at 366-67;
    United States v. Duarte, 
    569 F.3d 528
    , 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).
    Further, we have rejected the argument that § 2L1.2 overstates the
    seriousness of the offense. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 
    513 F.3d 204
    ,
    212 (5th Cir. 2008).
    After considering Macias-Ortiz’s arguments and the PSR, the district
    court determined that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range was
    reasonable based on his previous criminal history.        The within-guidelines
    sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v.
    Campos-Maldonado, 
    531 F.3d 337
    , 338 (5th Cir. 2008). His argument that the
    sentence is greater than necessary to meet the goals of § 3553(a) amounts to a
    disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors, and
    2
    Case: 15-50449     Document: 00513321918    Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/28/2015
    No. 15-50449
    we will not reweigh those factors. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51-
    52 (2007). His benign motive for returning to this country is insufficient to
    rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,
    
    523 F.3d 554
    , 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). His cultural assimilation argument is
    also insufficient. See id.; United States v. Rodriguez, 
    660 F.3d 231
    , 234-35 (5th
    Cir. 2011). Because Macias-Ortiz has failed to demonstrate that the district
    court did not consider a factor that should have received significant weight,
    gave significant weight to a factor it should have discounted, or made a clear
    error of judgment when it balanced the relevant factors, he has not rebutted
    the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Cooks, 
    589 F.3d 173
    ,
    186 (5th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    3