Case: 15-50476 Document: 00513319600 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 15-50476 December 23, 2015
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LEONEL WILSON-HOOKER,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CR-56-1
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Leonel Wilson-Hooker appeals his 15-month within-guidelines sentence
imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. Wilson-Hooker
asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater
than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In
support of this argument, he maintains that the U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 illegal
reentry sentencing guideline should not be afforded a presumption of
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50476 Document: 00513319600 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
No. 15-50476
reasonableness because it is not empirically based, double counts certain
predicate criminal convictions, overstates the seriousness of the illegal reentry
offense, and does not provide just punishment for the offense. Wilson-Hooker
additionally asserts that his sentence fails to reflect his personal history and
characteristics, namely, his terrible childhood, conscription with the Contras,
unsuccessful attempt to gain political asylum in the United States, and motive
for returning to the United States.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When a sentence falls
within a properly calculated guidelines range, we apply a rebuttable
presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th
Cir. 2009). “The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing that the
sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it
gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a
clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Id.
Wilson-Hooker’s empirical basis challenge to the presumption of
reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564
F. 3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009). We have rejected the argument that a sentence
imposed under § 2L1.2 is substantively unreasonable because certain predicate
criminal convictions are double counted in the computation of a defendant’s
guidelines range. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.
2009). We have also rejected the assertion that § 2L1.2 overstates the
seriousness of illegal reentry. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d
204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Finally, Wilson-Hooker’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 district court abused its
2
Case: 15-50476 Document: 00513319600 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
No. 15-50476
discretion. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir.
2008). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3