United States v. Martinez-Sosa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: 23-50754
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-50754 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50754 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ May 22, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Wilson Edit Martinez-Sosa,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:22-CR-2232-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Wilson Edit Martinez-Sosa pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 57 months of imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, he challenges his sentence as substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-50754 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2024

No. 23-50754

Because Martinez-Sosa preserved his substantive-reasonableness challenge, our review is for an abuse of discretion. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020); United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017). We presume that a within-guidelines sentence, like Martinez-Sosa’s, is reasonable. See United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2013). Although he acknowledges the presumption of reasonableness attached to his within-guidelines sentence, Martinez-Sosa makes no attempt to rebut that presumption by showing that the sentence did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represented a clear error of judgment in the balancing of the sentencing factors. See id.; see also United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118, 122 n.7 (5th Cir. 1996); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Inasmuch as he complains that he should have received a low-end guidelines sentence because he offered a legitimate reason for returning to the United States, his argument amounts to a mere disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). In essence, Martinez-Sosa asks that we reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which we may not do. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Rodriguez-Bernal, 783 F.3d 1002, 1008 (5th Cir. 2015). His disagreement with the district court’s assessment of the factors and the selected sentence does not show that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 154-55 (5th Cir. 2011); see also Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 166-67. AFFIRMED.