United States v. Reza-Macedo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 12, 2024
• Docket: 23-50590
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-50590 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 23-50590 July 12, 2024 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Fidel Reza-Macedo,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:22-CR-2307-1 ______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Fidel Reza-Macedo appeals the 46-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction to illegal reentry into the United States. We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-50590 Document: 59-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2024

No. 23-50590

2017). Because Reza-Macedo’s sentence was within a properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. See id. On appeal, Reza-Macedo argues that illegal reentry is little more than an international trespass, that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 double counted his criminal record, and that his advisory imprisonment range under the Guidelines therefore overstated his dangerousness and the seriousness of his offense. We have rejected similar claims previously. See United States v. Cordova- Lopez, 34 F.4th 442, 444-46 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Because Reza-Macedo has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attached to his within-guidelines sentence, he has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 167. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.