UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSE LUIS MALDONADO JAIMES (2016)

Jose Luis Maldonado-Jaimes appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 60 months of imprisonment imposed for his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.¹ Because Maldonado-Jaimes did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence in the district court, our review is limited to plain error. United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). A within-guidelines sentence is presumed to be reasonable. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 360.

We have rejected the argument that illegal reentry is merely an international trespass and that its seriousness is overstated by § 2L1.2. See e.g., United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Where the Sentencing Guidelines specifically allow it, we have also rejected that it is impermissible to “double-count” a prior conviction in both the guidelines offense level and in the criminal history calculation. See, e.g., United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Maldonado-Jaimes has failed to overcome the applicable presumption of reasonableness or to demonstrate error, plain or otherwise. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 360; see Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-92.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Maldonado-Jaimes also raises two arguments foreclosed by our precedent because he seeks to preserve them for further appellate review: (1) the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to a sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because the guideline provision lacks an empirical basis, and (2) a failure to object to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence should not be subject to plain error review. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

PER CURIAM:*