Case: 09-20745 Document: 00511244486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 24, 2010
No. 09-20745
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSE VARGAS ESPINOZA, also known as Jose Vargas Espinosa, also known
as Jose Vargas-Espinosa, also known as Jose Vargies, also known as Jose
Espinosa, also known as Jose Espinosa Vargas,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CR-238-1
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Vargas Espinoza was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into the
United States, and the district court sentenced him to serve 76 months in prison
and a three-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, he argues that his
within-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
court failed to properly weigh his mitigating evidence concerning his reasons for
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-20745 Document: 00511244486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2010
No. 09-20745
returning to this country, gave too much weight to his criminal history, and failed to
properly account for the fact that many of his prior offenses were due to his drug
addiction. We disagree with these arguments, and our review of the record and
pertinent jurisprudence shows no abuse of discretion in connection with the
sentence imposed. See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752
(5th Cir. 2009).
The appellant’s arguments concerning the reasonableness vel non of his
sentence amount to a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of certain
sentencing factors and the appropriateness of the within-guidelines sentence
imposed. This disagreement does not suffice to show error in connection with
the sentence imposed. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523
F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). This disagreement likewise does not suffice to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to the within-guidelines
sentence. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2