Case: 20-50862 Document: 00515859797 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-50862 May 12, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Amber Elise Delgadillo,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CR-4111-1
Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Amber Elise Delgadillo pleaded guilty to: one count of importing 50
grams or more of methamphetamine into the United States, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(2)(H); and one count of possession,
with intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50862 Document: 00515859797 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-50862
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). She received, inter alia, a
sentence of 46-months’ imprisonment (the bottom of the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines range). Delgadillo contends her within-Guidelines
sentence is substantively unreasonable, claiming the district court: relied too
heavily on the sentencing range, which overstated the seriousness of her
offense; and failed to give appropriate weight to the sentencing factors in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-
Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de
novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A properly calculated sentence
within the Guidelines range, as in this instance, is presumptively reasonable.
United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); see, e.g., United
States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting the presumption of
reasonableness applies to within-Guidelines sentences “even if the
applicable Guideline is not empirically based”).
In maintaining her within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable, Delgadillo relies upon mitigating circumstances claimed
relevant to the offense and her personal characteristics. At sentencing, the
court considered her claims for mitigation and assessed the § 3553(a) factors,
concluding her case did not warrant a downward variance from the
Guidelines sentencing range. Delgadillo’s contention amounts to a request
for this court to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which is contrary to the above-
2
Case: 20-50862 Document: 00515859797 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
No. 20-50862
referenced presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences.
See United States v. Martinez, 921 F.3d 452, 483 (5th Cir. 2019).
AFFIRMED.
3