Case: 11-50051 Document: 00511628004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 11, 2011
No. 11-50051
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JORGE SAUL ROBLES-ROBLES, also known as Jose Robles,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:10-CR-2327-1
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jorge Saul Robles-Robles (Robles) appeals the 42-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry of the United States after
deportation. He contends that his within guidelines sentence was greater than
necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and,
thus, it was substantively unreasonable. More specifically, Robles argues that,
because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and results in “double
counting” of prior offenses, his guidelines sentence does not merit a presumption
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-50051 Document: 00511628004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2011
No. 11-50051
of reasonableness. He also maintains that the guidelines range failed to reflect
the seriousness of his offense and his benign motive for reentering the United
States.
We need not decide whether, despite his arguments in the district court
in support of a downward variance, Robles’s failure to object to the
reasonableness of his sentence results in plain error review. Compare United
States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008), with United States v.
Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Robles’s arguments fail under
either a plain error or an abuse of discretion standard of review.
We have rejected the contention that a presumption of reasonableness
should not apply to a sentence within the guideline range merely because
§ 2L1.2 is not supported by empirical data and because it may result in double-
counting. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009).
Robles’s reliance on his allegedly benign motive for reentering the United States
is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v.
Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). “A defendant’s
disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed does not suffice to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines
sentence.” United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). Because
Robles has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
2