USA v. Inmer Velasquez, No. 10-50049 (5th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 10-50049 Document: 00511250780 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-50049 Summary Calendar October 1, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. INMER VELASQUEZ, also known as Israel Ramirez-Suarez, also known as Inmer Zuniga Velasquez, also known as Inmer Zuniga, also known as Zuniga Velasquez, also known as Israel Suarez Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:09-CR-444-1 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Inmer Velasquez appeals the 57-month sentence imposed in connection with his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that he should have been sentenced below the guidelines range. Velasquez argues that his benign motives for reentry support a sentence below the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-50049 Document: 00511250780 Page: 2 No. 10-50049 Date Filed: 10/01/2010 guidelines range. He also argues that the illegal reentry guideline s emphasis on criminal history and lack of empirical grounding led to an unreasonable sentence. In reviewing a sentence, we normally consider[] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Because Velasquez did not object to his sentence as unreasonable after it was pronounced by the district court, our review is limited to review for plain error. See United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 358 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2814 (2009). A plain error is a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects the defendant s substantial rights. United States v. Gonzalez-Guzman, 597 F.3d 695, 696 (5th Cir. 2010). When those elements are shown, this court has the discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. We are not persuaded that the illegal reentry guideline s emphasis on a defendant s criminal history and lack of empirical grounding necessarily renders a sentence computed under that guideline unreasonable. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Velasquez s personal history and characteristics, including his motives for reentering the United States, are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 565-66. Velasquez has not demonstrated that the district court s imposition of a 57-month sentence, a sentence at the top of the properly calculated guidelines range, was plain error. The judgment of the district court 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.