United States v. Magana-Medrano

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-50716
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50716 Document: 83-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED October 21, 2025 No. 24-50716 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Luis Ramon Magana-Medrano,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-505-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Luis Magana-Medrano appeals the 92-month sentence imposed for his conviction of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that his upward-variant sentence, nearly double the high end of the guideline range, is substantively unreasonable; he complains that the district court gave insufficient weight to the guidelines and too much weight to aggravating

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50716 Document: 83-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2025

No. 24-50716

factors. The record indicates that the district court considered the guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and chose to vary upwardly in light of Magana-Medrano’s criminal and immigration history; that was within its dis- cretion. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Magana-Medrano has not shown that the extent of the variance is unreasonable; it is similar to other variances we have upheld. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 805, 807 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rhine, 637 F.3d 525, 526, 528–30 (5th Cir. 2011). Magana-Medrano has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by failing to account for a factor that warranted significant weight or that it gave undue weight to an improper factor. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We therefore defer to the district court’s determina- tion that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, warrant the variance. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED.