United States v. Pedro Lopez-Salgado

644 F. App'x 335

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Pedro Lopez-Salgado argues that the 30-month within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after prior deportation was greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based, and that the 12-level enhancement for his prior alien transportation conviction was too severe. He further asserts that his illegal reentry did not pose a danger to others.

The within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.2008). After considering Lopez-Salgado’s arguments, the district court determined that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range was appropriate based on Lopez-Salgado’s repeated removals from, and reentries into, this country. Lopez-Salgado’s benign motive for returning to this country is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008). His argument regarding the staleness of his prior alien transportation conviction is likewise insufficient. See United States v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 231, 234-35 (5th Cir.2011). Further, we have rejected the argument that § 2L1.2’s purported lack of an empirical basis necessarily renders a sentence under it unreasonable, see United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.2009), and that § 2L1.2 overstates the seriousness of the offense. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir.2008).

Lopez-Salgado’s argument that the sentence is greater than necessary to meet the goals of § 3553(a) amounts to a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors, and we will not reweigh those factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). He has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published ^nd is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.