UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROLANDO ANTONIO ESCAMILLA ROMERO (2017)

Defendant-Appellant Rolando Antonio Escamilla-Romero appeals the within-guidelines, 57-month sentence imposed for his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Escamilla-Romero's arguments fail to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court, which was “in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a),” was aware of Escamilla-Romero's mitigating contentions, but it imposed a sentence within the guidelines range. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. We have rejected the argument that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2's double-counting of a prior conviction in the calculation of a defendant's offense level and criminal history score necessarily renders a sentence unreasonable. United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). We have also rejected challenges based on substantive reasonableness grounded in alleged lack of seriousness of illegal reentry. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Finally, as Escamilla-Romero concedes, his argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not be applied to his sentence because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 530-31; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM:*