United States v. Javier Sanchez-Ramos

Case: 16-41293 Document: 00514013866 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-41293 FILED
Summary Calendar May 31, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAVIER SANCHEZ-RAMOS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-634-1
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant-Appellant Javier Sanchez-Ramos appeals the 75-month
above-guideline sentence that the district court imposed when he pleaded
guilty to being found in the United States after having previously been
deported. Sanchez-Ramos argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court made a clear error in judgment when
it balanced the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 16-41293 Document: 00514013866 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2017
No. 16-41293
We ordinarily consider a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of
a sentence “by examining the totality of the circumstances under an abuse of
discretion standard.” United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d 289, 295 (5th
Cir. 2013). When an error was not sufficiently preserved in the district court,
however, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d
220, 224-25 (5th Cir. 2013). The parties dispute which standard applies, but
we need not resolve that issue.
Despite Sanchez-Ramos’s assertions, there is no indication in the record
that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received
significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a
clear error in judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States
v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440-41 (5th Cir. 2013); Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d at 295.
Although the court referred to the fact that his most recent conviction did not
garner an enhancement, that was one of several aspects of Sanchez-Ramos’s
criminal history that the court considered. Furthermore, the extent of any
deviation was within the range of other sentences that we have affirmed. See
United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 155 n.34 (5th Cir. 2011) (collecting
cases). Sanchez-Ramos has not demonstrated that the district court committed
any error, plain or otherwise. See Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440-41. Accordingly,
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2