Case: 20-11037 Document: 00515923930 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 2, 2021
No. 20-11037
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Santiago Vasquez Solano,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-19-3
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Santiago Vasquez Solano appeals the 200-month below-guidelines
term of imprisonment imposed following his bench trial conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture
or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. He
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-11037 Document: 00515923930 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2021
No. 20-11037
challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that
it is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). He maintains that his sentence fails to reflect: (1) his lack of
criminal history; (2) his low risk of recidivism; (3) his educational
background; (4) the fact that he would have received a safety valve reduction
if he had debriefed with the Government; and (5) the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities.
We review the substantive reasonableness of Vazquez Solano’s
sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). After considering the § 3553(a) factors as well as Vazquez Solano’s
mitigating arguments, the district court determined that a sentence of 200
months was appropriate under the circumstances. The sentence is entitled
to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d
548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015). Vazquez Solano has not rebutted the presumption
as he has not shown the district court did not account for a factor that should
have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper
factor, or made a clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. See id. at
558. His disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the sentencing
factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United
States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Ruiz, 621
F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). Therefore, Vazquez Solano has not shown that
his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Simpson, 796 F.3d at 558.
AFFIRMED.
2