United States v. Garcia-Sanchez ( 2023 )

Case: 22-11225 Document: 00516884021 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-11225
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 5, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Faustino Garcia-Sanchez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-614-1
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Faustino Garcia-Sanchez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the
United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and the
district court sentenced him to 60 months of imprisonment under
§ 1326(b)(2). Garcia-Sanchez contends that his above-guidelines sentence
was substantively unreasonable. He also argues that his sentence violates his
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11225 Document: 00516884021 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
No. 22-11225
right to due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense
charged in the indictment. However, he correctly concedes that his due
process argument is foreclosed based on the Supreme Court’s decision in
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and explains that he
merely seeks to preserve the issue for further review. See United States v.
Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019).
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse
of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Before imposing
an above-guidelines sentence, the district court considered the nature and
circumstances of the offense, Garcia-Sanchez’s history and characteristics,
and the need for deterrence. While Garcia-Sanchez argues that the district
court gave too much weight to his immigration history, “the sentencing court
is free to conclude that the applicable Guidelines range gives too much or too
little weight to one or more factors, either as applied in a particular case or as
a matter of policy.” United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir.
2008). Moreover, despite his assertions to the contrary, the record reflects
that the district court considered the mitigating factors behind Garcia-
Sanchez’s most recent illegal reentries and simply found that those factors
were outweighed by Garcia-Sanchez’s history and the need for specific
deterrence. Because the sentencing proceedings as a whole support the
district court’s determination to impose an above-guidelines sentence,
Garcia-Sanchez has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Nguyen, 854 F.3d 276,
283 (5th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.
2