Filed: Sep. 03, 2021
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2021
Case: 21-60283 Document: 00516002793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
September 3, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:19-CR-31-1
Before Southwick, Oldham and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Tzul appeals his eight-month sentence imposed after
revocation of his term of supervised release pertaining to his 2019 conviction
for illegal reentry into the United States after being previously deported. He
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60283 Document: 00516002793 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2021
argues that his sentence, which was within the advisory range, is
Both parties contend that review is for plain error because Tzul did
not preserve his argument in the district court. However, by requesting a
sentence lower than the advisory range, Tzul preserved his substantive-
reasonableness challenge. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct.
, 766–67 (2020). Thus, we review his preserved challenge to the
revocation sentence under a “plainly unreasonable” standard. See United
States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678
, 682 (5th Cir. 2018).
“A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it (1) does not account
for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant
weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of
judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Warren, 720
, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A
revocation sentence within the advisory range is presumptively reasonable.
See United States v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536
, 541 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied,
141 S. Ct. 827
Despite Tzul’s arguments to the contrary, the record shows that the
district court considered Tzul’s testimony and mitigating arguments. In
imposing the sentence, the district court articulated its consideration of the
relevant sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Tzul has not
demonstrated any clear error of judgment in the court’s balancing of the
relevant sentencing factors. Rather, his arguments amount to nothing more
than a disagreement with the sentence imposed, which is insufficient grounds
for reversal. See Badgett, 957 F.3d at 541. Accordingly, Tzul fails to
demonstrate an abuse of the district court’s wide sentencing discretion. See
Warren, 720 F.3d at 332; United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841
, 843 (5th Cir.