United States v. Olalde-Suarez ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10135 Document: 00516913230 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10135
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Pablo Olalde-Suarez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-407-1
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Pablo Olalde-Suarez appeals, as substantively unreasonable, his 48-
month, within-guidelines range sentence for illegal reentry by a deported
alien. Olalde-Suarez advocated for a sentence below the guidelines range
because, he argued, his age and an undischarged 25-year state sentence to be
served before his federal sentence would effectively result in life
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10135 Document: 00516913230 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2023
No. 23-10135
imprisonment. He contends that the district court’s decision to reduce his
sentence by only three months from the top of the guidelines range of 41 to
51 months represented a clear error in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a)
factors because the court’s expressed appreciation of his mitigation
arguments cannot rationally be squared with such a small reduction.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 56 (2007). Olalde-
Suarez’s within-guidelines range sentence is presumed to be substantively
reasonable. See United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 741 F.3d 289, 295 (5th Cir.
2013). To rebut that presumption, he must show that his sentence fails to
take in to account a factor that should receive significant weight, gives
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear
error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See id.Olalde-Suarez fails to make the requisite showing. The mere fact that
the district court did not reduce his sentence to the degree requested does
not mean that it did not take his mitigation arguments into account; to the
contrary, it expressly did so. However, the court also considered Olalde-
Suarez’s extensive criminal history and multiple prior illegal reentries as a
counterweight to his mitigation arguments. In settling on a 48-month
sentence, the court cited a number of § 3553(a) factors, including Olalde-
Suarez’s history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the
offense, and the need to provide just punishment, promote respect for the
law, and afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. See § 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(A)-(B). That Olalde-Suarez disagrees with the balancing of the factors
does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United
States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir. 2016).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2