Filed: Oct. 15, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: Case: 12-51208 Document: 00512407028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 15, 2013 No. 12-51208 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEVER SANDER QUINTANILLA-SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CR-466-1 Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P
Summary: Case: 12-51208 Document: 00512407028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 15, 2013 No. 12-51208 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEVER SANDER QUINTANILLA-SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CR-466-1 Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PE..
More
Case: 12-51208 Document: 00512407028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 15, 2013
No. 12-51208
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LEVER SANDER QUINTANILLA-SALGADO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-466-1
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lever Sander Quintanilla-Salgado appeals from his within-guidelines
sentence of 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release
following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after
deportation. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence,
arguing that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary
to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and because it does not
reflect his personal history and circumstances. He also argues that his sentence
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-51208 Document: 00512407028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
No. 12-51208
is unreasonable because the illegal reentry Guideline lacks an empirical basis
and double counts criminal history, and illegal reentry essentially is a mere
trespass offense. He concedes that his challenge to the lack of an empirical basis
for the illegal reentry Guideline is foreclosed by United States v. Mondragon-
Santiago,
564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).
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). A within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a
presumption of reasonableness. See Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 347
(2007). We have rejected the argument that illegal reentry is merely a trespass
offense that is treated too harshly under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v.
Aguirre-Villa,
460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Quintanilla-Salgado’s
disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is
insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a
within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks,
589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th
Cir. 2009). “[T]he 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). The fact
that we “might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was
appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.”
Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51.
Quintanilla-Salgado has not demonstrated that the district court abused
its discretion by sentencing him to a within-guidelines sentences of 46 months.
See
id. at 51. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2