United States v. Salguero-Tziboy ( 2023 )

Case: 22-51110 Document: 00516956057 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-51110
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 3, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Milena Salguero-Tziboy,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:21-CR-309-2
______________________________
Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Milena Salguero-Tziboy pleaded guilty to harboring illegal aliens for
the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain under 8
U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(1)(B)(i). She was sentenced to 97 months
of imprisonment, at the lowest end of the applicable guidelines range.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51110 Document: 00516956057 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2023
No. 22-51110
On appeal, Salguero-Tziboy argues that her sentence is substantively
unreasonable because it fails to properly account for the nature and
circumstances of the offense as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)—that is,
that she harbored the illegal aliens while being held in a condition of
involuntary servitude and under the threat of harm to her family in
Guatemala. In particular, she maintains that she was forced to work as a
caretaker at a stash house for smuggled aliens to pay off her debt. Because
she preserved this claim, we review it for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th 477, 480-81 (5th Cir. 2022).
When evaluating whether a sentence is substantively reasonable, this
court looks to the factors listed in § 3553(a). United States v. Ochoa, 977 F.3d
354, 357 (5th Cir. 2020). A “properly calculated, within-guidelines
sentence,” such as the one here, is entitled to a “rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
“The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does
not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear
error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Id.The record reflects that the district court carefully considered
Salguero-Tziboy’s argument but ultimately rejected it. It found that
Salguero-Tziboy had chosen to come to the United States illegally and was
paid to be a caretaker at the stash house for smuggled aliens. The district
court found that Salguero-Tziboy’s testimony regarding how she came to the
United States and why she was working at the stash house was “incredible,
and therefore not believable.” As such, the district court concluded that,
based on its analysis of all of the factors set forth in § 3553(a), the guidelines
range was fair and reasonable, and a 97-month sentence, at the lowest end of
the range, was warranted.
2
Case: 22-51110 Document: 00516956057 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2023
No. 22-51110
As we have previously acknowledged, “the sentencing judge is in a
superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with
respect to a particular defendant.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531
F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Willis, 76 F.4th 467,
477 (5th Cir. 2023) (“The judge sees and hears the evidence, makes
credibility determinations, has full knowledge of the facts and gains insights
not conveyed by the record.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)). Salguero-Tziboy’s claim amounts to “a request that we reweigh
the sentencing factors and substitute our judgment for that of the district
court, which we will not do.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167
(5th Cir. 2017). Because Salguero-Tziboy has not rebutted the presumption
of reasonableness that is afforded to her within-guidelines sentence, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See id.The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3