Case: 15-50292 Document: 00513270685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 15-50292
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar November 13, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN CARLOS AGUILAR-OSORTO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:14-CR-186
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Carlos Aguilar-Osorto was convicted of illegal reentry and received
a within-guidelines sentence of 41 months of imprisonment followed by a three-
year term of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his sentence was
substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy
the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As Aguilar-Osorto raised this
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50292 Document: 00513270685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
No. 15-50292
objection below, our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
A sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is
accorded a presumption of reasonableness and is rebutted only if the district
court fails to consider a significant factor, gives weight to an irrelevant factor,
or clearly errs in balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Cooks, 589
F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th
Cir. 2006). Aguilar-Osorto’s empirical basis challenge to the presumption of
reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-
31 (5th Cir. 2009). We have rejected the argument that a sentence imposed
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is greater than necessary to meet the § 3553(a)
goals as a result of any double counting inherent in that Guideline, see Duarte,
569 F.3d at 529-31, as well as the argument that illegal reentry is merely an
international trespass offense, see United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d
204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Aguilar-Osorto’s remaining arguments are nothing
more than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a)
factors, which is insufficient to show the court abused its discretion. See United
States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2