USA v. Mario Robledo-Chila, No. 09-50383 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-50383 Document: 00511000484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-50383 Summary Calendar January 11, 2010 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MARIO ROBLEDO-CHILA, also known as Agustin Rodriguez, also known as Mario Robledo-Rodriguez, also known as Mario Rodriguez-Chila Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:08-CR-897-1 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mario Robledo-Chila pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). The district court sentenced him to a term of 51 months, which was within the guidelines imprisonment range of 41 to 51 months. Robledo now appeals, arguing that his sentence, which includes a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) because he was previously * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 09-50383 Document: 00511000484 Page: 2 No. 09-50383 Date Filed: 01/11/2010 deported following a crime of violence conviction, is unreasonably long and greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court made an individualized sentencing decision based on the facts of the case in light of the factors set out in § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). The district court s conclusion that a within-guidelines sentence is appropriate is entitled to deference, and we presume that it is reasonable. Id. at 597; United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2522 (2008). The district court was in a superior position to find facts and assess their import under § 3553(a), Gall, 552 U.S. at 597-98, and we see no reason to disturb the district court s discretionary decision to impose a sentence within the guidelines range. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
