USA v. Jesus Ortiz-Ortiz, No. 09-51136 (5th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-51136 Document: 00511292324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-51136 Summary Calendar November 12, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESUS DANIEL ORTIZ-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-260-1 Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jesus Daniel Ortiz-Ortiz appeals the 46-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ortiz argues that his sentence is unreasonable because his sentence is the result of impermissible double counting, does not reflect that his current illegal reentry conviction is not a crime of violence and posed no danger to others, and does not reflect that he illegally reentered because he needed work to support his family. Ortiz also argues that this court * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-51136 Document: 00511292324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2010 No. 09-51136 should not afford his sentence a presumption of reasonableness because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based. Ortiz s challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009). We have also rejected the argument that using a prior conviction to increase the offense level and in calculating criminal history is impermissible double counting. See United States v. Calbat, 266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2001). Ortiz has not rebutted the presumption that the district court sentenced him to a reasonable, properly calculated within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court s judgment is 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.