United States v. Lester Calderon-Valdez

551 F. App'x 186

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Lester Abimael Calderon-Valdez (Calderon) appeals his 80-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the presumption of reasonableness does not apply to his within-guidelines sentence because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not supported by empirical data. As Calderon concedes, this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.2009).

Calderon also argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that the Sentencing Guidelines failed to account for his cultural assimilation and his motive for reentering the United States. Calderon’s arguments are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.