Case: 09-51016 Document: 00511205669 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 17, 2010
No. 09-51016
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LORENZO ARREDONDO-DUENAS, also known as Lorenzo Arredondo-Duenes,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CR-1671-1
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lorenzo Arredondo-Duenas (Arredondo) appeals the 77-month sentence
he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United
States following deportation. He asserts that his sentence, despite being within
the applicable guidelines range, was substantively unreasonable because it was
greater than needed to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He notes
that the defense arguments at sentencing focused on his cultural assimilation
and his improved character and prospects in Mexico.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-51016 Document: 00511205669 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
No. 09-51016
Because Arredondo did not object to the imposed sentence as
unreasonable, we review this claim for plain error. United States v. Peltier, 505
F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Arredondo’s disagreement with the within-
guidelines sentence imposed does not suffice to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 2007; United States
v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v.
Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).
Additionally, Arredondo contends that the applicable guidelines range of
77-96 months in prison was too severe because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 was not
empirically based. This court has consistently rejected Arredondo’s “empirical
data” argument. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009). Additionally Arredondo has not established
that this court may not apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence
imposed within the applicable guidelines range. See United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192
(2009). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2