United States v. Rolando Escamilla-Romero

Case: 16-50269 Document: 00513826873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-50269 FILED
Summary Calendar January 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROLANDO ANTONIO ESCAMILLA-ROMERO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:15-CR-596-1
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant-Appellant Rolando Antonio Escamilla-Romero appeals the
within-guidelines, 57-month sentence imposed for his guilty-plea conviction for
illegal reentry. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
and greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Escamilla-
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50269 Document: 00513826873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2017
No. 16-50269
Romero’s arguments fail to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we
apply to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d
173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337,
338 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court, which was “in a superior position to
find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a),” was aware of Escamilla-
Romero’s mitigating contentions, but it imposed a sentence within the
guidelines range. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. We have rejected the
argument that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2’s double-counting of a prior conviction in the
calculation of a defendant’s offense level and criminal history score necessarily
renders a sentence unreasonable. United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-
31 (5th Cir. 2009). We have also rejected challenges based on substantive
reasonableness grounded in alleged lack of seriousness of illegal reentry.
United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008); United
States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Finally, as
Escamilla-Romero concedes, his argument that the presumption of
reasonableness should not be applied to his sentence because § 2L1.2 lacks an
empirical basis is foreclosed. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 530-31; United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2