Case: 15-51056 Document: 00513727307 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-51056 FILED
Summary Calendar October 20, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAMIRO MENDEZ-MURILLO, also known as David Mendez, also known as
Sedillo Guadalupe,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-293-1
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ramiro Mendez-Murillo was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into
the United States, and he received an above-guidelines sentence of 37 months
in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Now, Mendez-Murillo
argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
court gave too much weight to his unscored criminal convictions and too little
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-51056 Document: 00513727307 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
No. 15-51056
weight to his alcoholism. He also complains that the district court used his
prior 24-month sentence as its starting point, thereby supplanting the 10-16
month guidelines range.
If the district court has imposed a sentence that deviates from the
guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that this court evaluate
whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing
factors” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704,
708 (5th Cir. 2006). “A non-Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect
the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does not account for a factor that
should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in
balancing the sentencing factors.” Smith, 440 F.3d at 708.
The district court’s remarks at sentencing show that it gave due
consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and committed no error when balancing
them. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. Additionally, the record shows that the
district court started with the guidelines range but found this range
inadequate in light of several factors, including the desire for the sentence
imposed to provide an adequate measure of deterrence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(B). The record thus refutes Mendez-Murillo’s argument
concerning the district court’s alleged improper use of his prior 24-month
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2