USA v. Juan Elizondo-Ramo, No. 10-50558 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-50558 Document: 00511450346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-50558 Conference Calendar April 19, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN FRANCISCO ELIZONDO-RAMOS, also known as Juan Elizondo, also known as Francisco Elizondo, also known as Juan Francisco Elizondo, also known as Angel Elizondo, also known as Juan F. Elizondo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CR-2361-1 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Francisco Elizondo-Ramos (Elizondo) appeals the within guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. Elizondo argues that the sentence was unreasonable because the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based and, additionally, failed to account for his personal history and characteristics and the seriousness of his offense. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-50558 Document: 00511450346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011 No. 10-50558 Although some of these arguments were raised below, Elizondo did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence; therefore, review may be for plain error only. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). We need not determine whether plain error review is appropriate in this case, however, because Elizondo is not entitled to relief even assuming he preserved these issues. Elizondo argues that the presumption of reasonableness should not be afforded his within guidelines sentence because, without empirical basis, § 2L1.2 double-counts criminal history. He correctly concedes that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009), and raises it to preserve the argument s further review. Elizondo s argument that his sentence is unreasonable because the illegal reentry Guideline is not empirically based was rejected by this court in United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009). Insofar as Elizondo argues that his personal history and characteristics entitled him to a more lenient sentence, the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant. United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Elizondo s mere disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within guidelines sentence. Cf. United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). 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.
