Case: 12-20272 Document: 00512222622 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 26, 2013
No. 12-20272
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSE LUIS ROJAS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-116-2
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Luis Rojas appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
conviction of conspiring to commit sex trafficking and to harbor illegal aliens.
He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the
enhancement of his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) increased his advisory
sentencing guidelines range such that his sentence was greater than necessary
to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although his total
sentence of 192 months of imprisonment fell well below his advisory 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-20272 Document: 00512222622 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2013
No. 12-20272
guidelines range of life imprisonment, Rojas contends that an even shorter term
of imprisonment was appropriate because he was merely a maintenance worker
at his sister’s brothel, the offense was his first incursion into significant
criminality, and during his many years in the United States he was a hard
working member of the community.
We review criminal sentences, including those based on variances, for
reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “Appellate review
is highly deferential as the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts
and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.”
United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Despite
the mitigating factors in Rojas’s case, the district court noted that the sentence
imposed was appropriate in light of the large scale of Rojas’s operation. Rojas’s
assertion that he should have been sentenced further below the guidelines range
merely reflects a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a)
factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2