United States v. Ernesto Castro-Sanchez

Case: 10-50696 Document: 00511475272 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 12, 2011 No. 10-50696 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ERNESTO CASTRO-SANCHEZ, Also Known as Ernesto Castro-Juarez, Also Known as Nestor Chavez-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 3:10-CR-682-1 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ernesto Castro-Sanchez appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-50696 Document: 00511475272 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2011 No. 10-50696 his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry into the United States following re- moval. He contends that the within-guidelines sentence is greater than neces- sary to satisfy the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and therefore is sub- stantively unreasonable. He specifically argues that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 essentially double-counts his criminal history. He contends that his offense constitutes a mere international trespass and that the guideline range failed to reflect his per- sonal history and characteristics, including his benign motive for reentering. Because Castro-Sanchez did not object to the reasonableness of his sen- tence in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Cam- pos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). This guidelines-range sen- tence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2008). We have rejected the argument that an appellant is entitled to relief be- cause § 2L1.2 double-counts a criminal history. United States v. Kings, 981 F.2d 790, 796 (5th Cir. 1993). We have also determined that the “international tres- pass” argument does not justify disturbing an otherwise presumptively reasona- ble sentence. United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court made an individualized sentencing decision based on the facts in light of the factors in § 3553(a). See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50. The con- clusion that a within-guidelines sentence is appropriate is entitled to deference, and we presume that it is reasonable. See id. at 51-52; Newson, 515 F.3d at 379. There is no reason to disturb the discretionary decision to impose a sentence within the guideline range. AFFIRMED. 2