eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2012-10

United States v. Williams Ramos-Castillo , 490 F. App'x 644 ( 2012 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 11-31168     Document: 00512028381         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/22/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 22, 2012
No. 11-31168
Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
WILLIAMS RUBEN RAMOS-CASTILLO, also known as Alexia Ortiz,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:11-CR-78-1
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Williams Ruben Ramos-Castillo (Ramos) appeals the sentence he received
following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    .      Ramos argues that his within-guidelines 50-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the
sentencing goals outlined in
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). He asserts that the district
court should have sentenced him below the guidelines range of imprisonment
because the unlawful reentry Guideline is not empirically based and effectively
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-31168   Document: 00512028381     Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/22/2012
No. 11-31168
double counts a prior conviction and because his individual characteristics
warranted a lower sentence.
The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States,
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). Although Ramos
argued for a downward variance, he failed to object after the imposition of his
sentence, such that review is arguably for plain error. See United States v.
Peltier,
    505 F.3d 389
    , 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007); but see United States v. Flanagan,
    87 F.3d 121
    , 124 (5th Cir. 1996). This court need not determine whether plain
error review is appropriate because Ramos’s arguments fail even under the
abuse-of-discretion standard of review. See United States v. Rodriguez,
    523 F.3d 519
    , 525 (5th Cir. 2008).
Ramos’s arguments regarding the reentry Guideline are foreclosed by this
court’s precedent. See United States v. Duarte,
    569 F.3d 528
    , 530-31 (5th Cir.
2009). Further, he has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that
applies to his within-guidelines sentence.      See United States v. Campos-
Maldonado,
    531 F.3d 337
    , 338 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gomez-Herrera,
    523 F.3d 554
    , 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2