Case: 10-50508 Document: 00511382461 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 15, 2011
No. 10-50508
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LUIS ALBERTO PLACENCIA-MARQUEZ, also known as Luis Moreno-
Marquez, also known as Jose Luis Lopes,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:10-CR-124-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Alberto Placencia-Marquez (Placencia) appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction to illegal reentry of a previously deported
alien, arguing that his sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the
sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and is therefore unreasonable.
Specifically, he contends that his sentence is greater than necessary because the
Sentencing Guidelines account for a prior conviction both to increase his offense
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-50508 Document: 00511382461 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
No. 10-50508
level and to calculate his criminal history score. He also argues that the
guidelines range did not properly account for his personal history and
characteristics, including his motive for reentering.
Placencia concedes that because he did not object to his sentence, the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence is reviewed for plain error. To show
plain error, the appellant must show an error that is clear or obvious and that
affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir.
2008). If the appellant makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to
correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
We have previously rejected the argument that the double counting of a
defendant’s criminal history necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable. See
United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct.
378 (2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360-61 (5th
Cir.) cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2L1.2, comt. at n.6. Placencia’s disagreement with the district court’s
balancing of the § 3553(a) factors does not suffice to show error in connection
with his sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66
(5th Cir. 2008). He has shown no error, plain or otherwise. Even if we must
review for abuse of discretion, as Placencia contends, we are satisfied that there
is no error here. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2