United States v. Ramirez-Benavidez ( 2022 )

Case: 21-50370 Document: 00516260249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 30, 2022
No. 21-50370
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Raul Ramirez-Benavides,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 21-50385
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Raul Ramirez-Benavidez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 21-50370 Document: 00516260249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 21-50370
c/w No. 21-50385
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-504-1
USDC No. 2:19-CR-1357-1
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Raul Ramirez-Benavides appeals his within-guidelines prison
sentence of 37 months, which the district court imposed following his guilty
plea conviction of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. He also appeals a separate within-guidelines 14-month prison
sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release term for
a prior offense. The district court ordered that these sentences be served
consecutively. Ramirez-Benavides argues that the district court failed to
explain its reasoning for running the sentences consecutively and that the
aggregate 51-month sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Because Ramirez-Benavides did not object in the district court to the
lack of an explanation for the consecutive sentences, we review for plain
error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). The record
reveals no clear or obvious error in the district court’s explanation of its
decision to impose these sentences consecutively because imposition of
consecutive sentences upon revocation is authorized by statute and
consistent with the Guidelines policy statement. See id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a);
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s. Even assuming, however, that the district court’s
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
2
Case: 21-50370 Document: 00516260249 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 21-50370
c/w No. 21-50385
explanation was lacking, Ramirez-Benavides has not shown that his
substantial rights were affected because nothing in the record suggests that a
more thorough explanation would have resulted in a different sentence. See
Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357,
365 (5th Cir. 2009).
As to his substantive reasonableness claim, Ramirez-Benavides argues
that the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, lacks an empirical basis
and double counts prior convictions. This court has previously rejected both
arguments. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67; United States v.
Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).
Further, Ramirez-Benavides has not rebutted the presumption of
reasonableness on appeal that attaches to a sentence within a properly
calculated guidelines range. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
141 S. Ct. 827 (2020). The district court considered Ramirez-Benavides’s
arguments in favor of a lower sentence and was in the best position to find
facts and judge their importance. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531
F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court’s decision is entitled to
deference. See id.The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3