United States v. Juan Flores , 570 F. App'x 376 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-50837 Document: 00512651208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-50837 June 3, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN MANUEL LIRA FLORES,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CR-21-1
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Manuel Lira Flores appeals from the 57-month within-guidelines
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for
illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. He argues that the sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than
necessary to achieve the goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-50837 Document: 00512651208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2014
No. 13-50837
We review Lira Flores’s challenge to his sentence under an abuse of
discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Mondragon-
Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the sentence was within
the advisory guidelines imprisonment range, we afford the sentence a
presumption of substantive reasonableness. United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d
681, 695 (5th Cir. 2013). Lira Flores asserts that the sentence imposed was
greater than necessary because the illegal-reentry guideline lacks an empirical
basis, his criminal history was effectively double-counted, his crime of
conviction was a type of international trespass, and the guidelines range failed
to reflect his personal history and circumstances. He has not made the
showing necessary to overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded his
sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The
record reflects that the district court considered Lira Flores’s mitigation
arguments and ultimately concluded that a sentence at the top of the
applicable guidelines range was appropriate based on the circumstances of the
case and the § 3553(a) factors. The fact that we might reasonably conclude
“that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2