United States v. Loya-Palma ( 2022 )

Case: 22-10256 Document: 00516556333 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 23, 2022
No. 22-10256
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Eladio Loya-Palma,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-242-1
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Eladio Loya-Palma appeals his sentence for illegal reentry. The
Guidelines range was 37–46 months of imprisonment. After determining that
Loya-Palma’s criminal history category substantially underrepresented the
seriousness of his criminal history or the likelihood that he would commit
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-10256 Document: 00516556333 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2022
No. 22-10256
other crimes, the district court applied an upward departure under U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.3(a)(1) and sentenced Loya-Palma to 56 months of imprisonment.
We review the district court’s decision to impose an upward
departure, as well as the extent of that departure, for an abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Zelaya-Rosales, 707 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2013). At
sentencing, the district court explained that the upward departure was based
on Loya-Palma’s status as a habitual offender, his continued engagement in
criminal behavior, and his numerous prior offenses that did not result in
conviction. These bases are supported by the record and are permissible for
purposes of § 4A1.3. See United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180, 189 (5th Cir.
2020); United States v. Lopez, 871 F.2d 513, 514–15 (5th Cir. 1989). Loya-
Palma’s challenge to the imposed sentence is merely a disagreement with
how the district court weighed the relevant factors, which “is not a sufficient
ground for reversal.” United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir.
2016). Moreover, we have upheld proportionately greater upward departures
than the one at issue here. See, e.g., Lavalais, 960 F.3d at 186, 189–90
(upholding a 59-month upward departure from a Guidelines maximum of 46
months); Zelaya-Rosales, 707 F.3d at 546 (upholding a six-month upward
departure from a Guidelines maximum of six months).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2