United States v. Luis Guerra-Palomo

Case: 18-50286 Document: 00514693570 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-50286 United States Court of Appeals
Summary Calendar
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 23, 2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
LUIS ANTONIO GUERRA-PALOMO,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:17-CR-924-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Antonio Guerra-Palomo appeals the 24-month, above-guidelines
sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into
the United States after removal. He argues that the sentence is greater than
necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Guerra-Palomo
contends that the sentence overstates the seriousness of his offense and
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-50286 Document: 00514693570 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2018
No. 18-50286
criminal history and fails to provide just punishment for that offense. He
further urges that the sentence overstates the need to protect the public and
promote respect for the law, and fails to adequately account for his personal
history and circumstances, including the presence of his family in Mexico, his
history of long-term employment in that country, and his lack of a record of
violence or abuse.
We review sentences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the
§ 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). In previous cases, we have rejected the arguments
that the Guidelines overstate the seriousness of illegal reentry because it is a
mere trespass offense, see United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212
(5th Cir. 2008), and that the Guidelines’ double-counting of criminal history
for illegal reentry renders a sentence unreasonable, see United States v.
Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, the district court
properly relied on Guerra-Palomo’s prior conviction in imposing an above-
guidelines sentence. See United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440 (5th Cir.
2013). His remaining arguments amount to disagreement with the district
court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors and fail to show that the district court
abused its discretion. See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir.
2016); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (“The fact that the appellate court might
reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is
insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.”) The record reflects the
district court listened to and considered Guerra-Palomo’s arguments in favor
of a lower sentence and rejected them, which was sufficient. See Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58 (2007).
Guerra-Palomo has not shown that the district court failed to consider
any significant factors, gave undue weight to any improper factor, or clearly
2
Case: 18-50286 Document: 00514693570 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/23/2018
No. 18-50286
erred in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d
704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3