United States v. Villarreal

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 2, 2022
• Docket: 21-40555
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-40555 Document: 00516221931 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2022

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

FILED No. 21-40555 March 2, 2022 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Angel Villarreal,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:21-CR-179-2

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Michael Angel Villarreal appeals his 20-month within-guidelines sentence of imprisonment following his guilty plea conviction of one count of conspiracy to transport an illegal alien within the United States and three

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-40555 Document: 00516221931 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2022

No. 21-40555

counts of transporting illegal aliens within the United States for private financial gain. He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Our review is for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Burney, 992 F.3d 398, 399 (5th Cir. 2021). Sentences within the properly calculated advisory guidelines range, as here, are presumed to be substantively reasonable, and we will infer from such a sentence that “the district court has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Villarreal’s arguments regarding the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors and its refusal to grant him a downward variance fail to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir. 2016). He fails to show that the district court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED.