United States v. Jose Sanchez

Case: 10-20639 Document: 00511578672 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 22, 2011
No. 10-20639
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

JOSE MIGUEL SANCHEZ, also known as Jose M. Sanchez, also known as Jose
Sanchez Zuniga, also known as Jose S. Zuniga,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CR-252-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Miguel Sanchez appeals the 32-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having been
removed following a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1).
Sanchez argues that his sentence, which was an upward departure from the
advisory guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable because it is greater
than necessary to achieve the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-20639 Document: 00511578672 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2011

No. 10-20639

Sanchez has failed to demonstrate that his 32-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 51 (2007);
United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). The
district court’s stated reasons for its decision to impose a departure takes into
consideration Sanchez’s history and characteristics; advances the objectives of
promoting respect for the law, providing deterrence, and protecting the public
from further crimes of the defendant; and are justified by the facts of the case.
See § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A)-(C). Additionally, though Sanchez lists a set of factors
he contends the court did not consider, he presents no convincing argument that
any of these is substantial enough that it should have been weighted more
heavily. Further, the 32-month sentence imposed represents a five-month
upward departure from the top of his advisory guidelines range and is within the
statutory maximum. See § 1326. We have affirmed far more substantial
departures than the one imposed in this case. See e.g., United States v. Smith,
417 F.3d 483, 491-93 & n.40 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d
298, 312 (5th Cir. 2005).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.