United States v. Azua-Moctezuma ( 2023 )

Case: 22-11119 Document: 00516779722 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-11119
FILED
June 8, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Aurelio Azua-Moctezuma,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:22-CR-168-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Aurelio Azua-Moctezuma appeals the 24-month, above-guidelines
prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally
reentering the United States. Azua-Moctezuma argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. Our review is for abuse of discretion. See
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11119 Document: 00516779722 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 22-11119
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020); Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46-47, 49-51 (2007).
Azua-Moctezuma has not shown that the district court did not
account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error in balancing
the sentencing factors. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th
Cir. 2013). The district court reviewed and adopted the presentence report,
considered Azua-Moctezuma’s mitigating arguments, and determined that
an above guidelines range sentence was appropriate because of his serious
criminal history and the need for deterrence. His protestations to the
contrary notwithstanding, the district court clearly based the upward
variance on Azua-Moctezuma’s prior conviction for the sexual assault of a
child. Despite his attempt to argue otherwise, Azua-Moctezuma ultimately
argues that the district court should have weighed the sentencing factors
differently, which “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v.
Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Hernandez, 876
F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.
2