Case: 19-10060 Document: 00515133697 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 26, 2019 No. 19-10060 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MIGUEL JILBERTO VAZQUEZ-CHAVARRIA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-175-1 Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * On July 2, 2015, Miguel Jilberto Vazquez-Chavarria was discovered by immigration authorities while in state custody. An immigration detainer was placed on him, but his prosecution for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation did not begin until approximately three years later, after he had served his state sentence. Following his guilty plea on the illegal reentry charge, Vazquez-Chavarria moved for a downward departure pursuant * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-10060 Document: 00515133697 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2019 No. 19-10060 to Application Note 7 of the Commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. The district court denied the departure motion and, varying upwardly from the advisory guidelines range, imposed a 72-month sentence of imprisonment. Vazquez- Chavarria appeals, contending that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it did not give enough weight to the delay in the commencement of his federal prosecution. Our review of a district court’s sentencing decision is limited to determining whether a sentence is reasonable. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). Generally, we review the substantive reasonableness of an above-guidelines sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir. 2010). Although Vazquez-Chavarria argues that an objection is not required to preserve the issue, our precedent permits the application of plain error review where, as here, the defendant fails to object to his sentence. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 390-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Because Vazquez-Chavarria’s substantive reasonableness challenge fails even under the ordinary abuse of discretion standard, we will apply the more lenient standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 361 (5th Cir. 2010). A non-guidelines sentence must be “reasonable under the totality of the relevant statutory factors.” United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A non-Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). “In making this determination, we must ‘give due deference to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C.] 2 Case: 19-10060 Document: 00515133697 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/26/2019 No. 19-10060 § 3553(a) factors, on a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals