Case: 13-50897 Document: 00512776785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-50897
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 22, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ISRAEL URIAS CASTRO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-45-1
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant-Appellant Israel Urias Castro appeals the within-guidelines
sentence that he received following his jury conviction for conspiring to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Castro argues that
his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he was entitled to a
downward variance to avoid an unwarranted disparity between his sentence
and those of his codefendants.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-50897 Document: 00512776785 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2014
No. 13-50897
Castro did not object to the sentence after the district court imposed it,
so we review for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92
(5th Cir. 2007). Under plain error review, Castro has the burden of
demonstrating a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his
substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If
he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error, but only
if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. See id. at 135.
Castro’s claim that the presumption of reasonableness accorded within-
guidelines sentences should not apply in his case because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)
lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d
528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d
357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). As for his contention that his guidelines sentence
is substantively unreasonable, Castro has not established that an
unwarranted disparity in the sentences exists, see United States v. Cisneros-
Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 766-67 (5th Cir. 2008), or that the district court failed
to consider his personal characteristics. His disagreement with the district
court’s balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish
error on the part of the district court. See United States v. Gomez–Herrera, 523
F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, he has not shown that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable and has not established that the
district court committed plain error. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007), Peltier, 505 F.3d at 392.
AFFIRMED.
2