Case: 20-50615 Document: 00515913044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 24, 2021
No. 20-50615
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Manuel Ramirez-Pacheco,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CR-800-1
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Manuel Ramirez-Pacheco appeals his guidelines minimum
sentence of 30 months in prison for illegal reentry. He contends that the
explanation for his sentence was inadequate and that the district court failed
to address his arguments meaningfully. Because he did not object to the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50615 Document: 00515913044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
No. 20-50615
procedural reasonableness of his sentence, we apply plain error review. See
United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009).
The district court expressly acknowledged Ramirez-Pacheco’s
arguments about the pandemic, his cultural assimilation, and the
overrepresentation of his criminal history. It denied a downward variance
because of his decades-long, violent criminal history and the finding that he
was unlikely to reform. Because the court considered his arguments and
provided a reasoned basis for rejecting the requested sentence that allows for
meaningful appellate review, he fails to show error, plain or otherwise. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 356-57 (2007). To the extent he also contends that the district court
failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and presumed the guidelines
range was reasonable or treated the Guidelines as mandatory, such assertions
are rebutted by the record.
Next, Ramirez-Pacheco contends that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable, a challenge preserved by his request for a lower sentence. See
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020). He
asserts that the sentence was arbitrary because the district court failed to
provide adequate reasons, an assertion we have rejected. He also contends
that the court did not account for his cultural assimilation and gave too much
weight to his criminal history, including arrests. Having found that he was
unlikely to change given his extensive criminal record, the district court’s
reasonable decision to give greater weight to his criminal history than his
cultural assimilation implicated proper factors such as his history and
characteristics, the need for deterrence, and the need to protect the public.
See § 3553(a). He thus fails to overcome the presumption that the sentence
was reasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2