United States v. Manuel Salinas-Soto

Case: 10-50622 Document: 00511406356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 10, 2011 No. 10-50622 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MANUEL SALINAS-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-582-1 Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Manuel Salinas-Soto appeals the within guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and is therefore unreasonable. Specifically, Salinas-Soto contends that his sentence is unreasonable because his sentence is the result of impermissible double counting, does not reflect that his current illegal reentry conviction is not a crime * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-50622 Document: 00511406356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2011 No. 10-50622 of violence and posed no danger to others, and does not reflect that he illegally reentered because he wanted to help his wife and children. Salinas-Soto also argues that this court should not afford his sentence a presumption of reasonableness because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based. Salinas-Soto’s challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009). We have also rejected the argument that using a prior conviction to increase the offense level and in calculating criminal history is impermissible “double counting.” See United States v. Calbat, 266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2001). Salinas-Soto’s sentence was properly calculated, and he has not rebutted the presumption that the district court sentenced him to a reasonable within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2