Case: 13-50017 Document: 00512401698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 9, 2013
No. 13-50017
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN CHAVEZ-ALDABA, also known as Isais Rivera-Aguilerra,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:12-CR-390-1
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Juan Chavez-Aldaba appeals the 36-month, non-
guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally
reentering the United States after having been removed. His sole claim on
appeal is that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Because Chavez-Aldaba does not contend that the district court committed
any procedural error in imposing the sentence, our review is confined to whether
the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50017 Document: 00512401698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2013
No. 13-50017
51 (2007). After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences are
ordinarily reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion
standard. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2010).
Because Chavez-Aldaba failed to challenge the reasonableness of his sentence
on the same grounds that he raises on appeal, however, we review the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence for plain error. See United States v.
Dunigan, 555 F.3d 501, 506 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d
389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).
Chavez-Aldaba argues that the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2
— which he contends has had a “problematic development” — double-counted
his criminal history and overstated the seriousness of his illegal reentry offense,
resulting in a guidelines range that was greater than necessary to satisfy the
sentencing goals of § 3553(a). Any argument that § 2L1.2 is not empirically
based is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 569
F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, we have repeatedly rejected the
arguments that a sentence imposed pursuant to § 2L1.2 is greater than
necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s goals as a result of any double counting inherent
in that Guideline, see id. at 529-31, and that § 2L1.2 overstates the seriousness
of illegal reentry because it is an international trespass offense, see United
States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). In addition, although
Chavez-Aldaba contends that there were mitigating factors for his reentry into
the United States, the district court did not fail to take those factors into
account.
Accordingly, because we find no error, plain or otherwise, the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2