United States v. Abel Zuniga-Navarro

Case: 15-50927 Document: 00513575565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-50927
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 30, 2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ABEL ZUNIGA-NAVARRO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:14-CR-194-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Abel Zuniga-Navarro appeals the 108-month sentence he received for his
illegal reentry conviction. He contends, for the first time on appeal, that his
sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Zuniga-Navarro fails to show any procedural error, much less plain
error. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). The record reflects
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50927 Document: 00513575565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
No. 15-50927
that the district court explicitly and implicitly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. The district court did not err by weighing some Section 3553(a) factors
more heavily than others. See United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 375–
76 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court’s comments regarding another defendant
can be construed as expressing its view that the quantity of drugs involved in
a defendant’s prior criminal history does not necessarily minimize the
significance of that criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will
commit further crimes, which are not improper considerations under
Section 3553(a). See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(C). Zuniga-Navarro’s conclusional
contention that the district court failed to adequately explain the sentence is
waived by virtue of inadequate briefing. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d
251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010).
There is no error, plain or otherwise, with respect to the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 390–
92 (5th Cir. 2007). Zuniga-Navarro’s arguments do not show a clear error of
judgment on the district court’s part in balancing the Section 3553(a) factors;
instead, they constitute a mere disagreement with the weighing of those
factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). He is
essentially requesting that we reweigh the Section 3553(a) factors, which we
may not do. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Accordingly, he has failed to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his within-guidelines
sentence. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366–67; United States v.
Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2