Case: 15-50274 Document: 00513335318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-50274 FILED
Summary Calendar January 8, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
NORBERTO MORALES-CHAVEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-37
Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Norberto Morales-Chavez (Morales) appeals the 12-month within-
guidelines consecutive sentence imposed by the district court following its
revocation of his prior three-year term of supervised release. Morales argues
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than
necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically,
he contends that the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-50274 Document: 00513335318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2016
No. 15-50274
Guidelines lack an empirical basis, overstate the seriousness of his supervised
release violation, fail to provide just punishment, and undermine respect for
the law. Morales further argues that his sentence exceeds what is necessary
to punish him for his breach of trust. Finally, he asserts that his sentence fails
to reflect his personal circumstances, namely, his age, family background,
employment history, mitigating circumstances surrounding his previous
kidnapping conviction, and his benign motive for returning to the United
States.
Although Morales contends that revocation sentences should be
reviewed for reasonableness pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), this court generally reviews challenges to revocation sentences under
the plainly unreasonable standard, United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843
(5th Cir. 2011). Because Morales’s revocation sentence is within the applicable
guidelines range established by the policy statements and consistent with the
policy statements’ advice regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences, it
is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Lopez-
Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d
468, 471 (5th Cir. 2006).
Morales’s assertion that consecutive revocation sentences should not be
afforded a presumption of reasonableness because the policy statements lack
an empirical basis is foreclosed. See id.; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,
564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009). Morales’s remaining challenges to his
revocation sentence are nothing more than a disagreement with the policy
statements and the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which is
insufficient to overcome the presumption. See United States v. Alvarado, 691
F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th
2
Case: 15-50274 Document: 00513335318 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2016
No. 15-50274
Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Morales has failed to show that his revocation
sentence is plainly unreasonable. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843.
AFFIRMED.
3