United States v. Cruz-Hernandez ( 2022 )

Case: 21-51152 Document: 00516367616 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-51152 June 23, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jesus Javier Cruz-Hernandez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-504-1
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jesus Javier Cruz-Hernandez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport
illegal aliens and now appeals the 46-month sentence imposed. He argues
that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than
necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-51152 Document: 00516367616 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2022
No. 21-51152
he argues that the district court should have given more consideration to the
severity of the increase to his base offense level, his lack of a criminal history,
his marital and substance abuse problems, and his employment history.
We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence imposed
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Furthermore, we presume that a within-guidelines sentence is
reasonable. United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2013). The
district court considered Cruz-Hernandez’s mitigation arguments, the
record, and the § 3553(a) factors before determining that a sentence at the
top of the guidelines range was fair and reasonable. Cruz-Hernandez fails to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his sentence by showing
that the district court failed to consider a pertinent factor, considered an
irrelevant or improper factor, or erred in balancing the sentencing factors.
See Jenkins, 712 F.3d at 214.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2