United States v. Benjamin Guevara-Mendez ( 2020 )

Case: 20-40098 Document: 00515555384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 8, 2020
No. 20-40098
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Benjamin Guevara-Mendez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CR-726-1
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Benjamin Guevara-Mendez was convicted of being an alien found
unlawfully in the United States after removal. In this appeal, he contends
that the sentence imposed was procedurally and substantively unreasonable
because the district court failed to give adequate reasons for the within
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-40098 Document: 00515555384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2020
No. 20-40098
guidelines sentence and for its ruling denying his motion for a downward
departure and considered inadequately the nature and circumstances of the
offense and his criminal history. He asserts that his prior criminal history
was double counted under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because it was considered in
determining his offense level and his criminal history category.
We lack jurisdiction to consider whether the district court erred in
failing to downwardly depart from the guidelines range, see United States v.
Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1020 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 320 (2019), and
we have rejected the contention that double counting of a defendant’s
criminal conduct under § 2L1.2 necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable,
see United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).
Because error was preserved, our review of the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence is for an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also Holguin-Hernandez v. United States,
140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020). Our review is highly deferential. See United
States v. Lugo-Lopez, 833 F.3d 453, 461-62 (5th Cir. 2016). We presume that
a within-guidelines sentence is reasonable and that the district court has
considered all of the statutory sentencing factors. See United States v.
Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2013); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Ultimately, Guevara-Mendez simply disagrees with the sentence
chosen by the district court and so fails to overcome the presumption that the
district court imposed a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621
F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the district court
considered Guevara-Mendez’s contentions and it rejected them, explaining
its reasons for doing so adequately. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
356-57 (2007). The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2