Case: 14-40651 Document: 00513009469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-40651
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 17, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARTIN OSVALDO JURADO-MOLINA, also known as Anastacio Torres-
Banda,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:13-CR-1729-1
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Martin Osvaldo Jurado-Molina appeals the 77-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that his
sentence, which is within the applicable guidelines range of imprisonment, is
substantively unreasonable. Jurado-Molina maintains that the district court
placed undue weight on the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40651 Document: 00513009469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2015
No. 14-40651
from further crimes committed by him. We need not decide whether Jurado-
Molina properly preserved an objection to the substantive reasonableness of
his sentence because his argument fails even under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).
The record reflects that the district court’s sentencing decision was based
on an individualized assessment of the facts in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). The district
court’s determination of the proper sentence is entitled to deference, and we
may not reweigh the § 3553(a) factors or reverse a sentence because we might
reasonably conclude that a different sentence is appropriate. Id. at 51-52.
Jurado-Molina’s assertion that the district court should have given less weight
to the need to protect the public from further crimes committed by him reflects
his disagreement with the propriety of his sentence, which does not justify
reversal. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). He has
set forth no other reason for us to disturb the presumption of reasonableness
that applies to his sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2