Case: 14-50703 Document: 00512951872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 14-50703
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar February 27, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
VICTOR MANUEL DOMINGUEZ-GODINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CR-890
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Victor Manuel Dominguez-Godinez appeals the within-guidelines, 46-
month sentence imposed for his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry. He
contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than
necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse
of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Dominguez-
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-50703 Document: 00512951872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2015
No. 14-50703
Godinez’s arguments fail to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we
apply to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d
173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337,
338 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court, who was “in a superior position to find
facts and judge their import under § 3553(a),” was presented with Dominguez-
Godinez’s mitigating arguments but concluded that a sentence within the
guidelines range was appropriate. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. As
Dominguez-Godinez concedes, his argument that the presumption of
reasonableness should not be applied to his sentence because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2
lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d
528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d
357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2