USA v. Humberto Pina-Valle, No. 11-50305 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-50305 Document: 00511708295 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-50305 Summary Calendar December 28, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. HUMBERTO PINA-VALLES, also known as Humberto V. Pina, also known as Humberto Pina Valles, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-3067-1 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Humberto Pina-Valles challenges his 41-month sentence, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He contends the sentence is unreasonable under the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it: overstated the seriousness of his offense; failed to provide just punishment for the offense; resulted from an unjust double-counting of his * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-50305 Document: 00511708295 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2011 No. 11-50305 prior drug-trafficking offense; and failed to account for his personal history, characteristics, and motive for unlawfully reentering the country. Preserved objections, as in this instance, to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 564 (5th Cir. 2008). Our court has previously rejected the contention that a sentence imposed pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2 is unreasonable because it resulted from double-counting. E.g., United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the record demonstrates the district court: considered Pina s arguments for a sentence below his Guidelines sentencing range; concluded Guideline § 2L1.2 provided a reasonable sentencing range; and imposed a sentence at the bottom of that range. Pina s disagreement with the sentence does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness given it. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 565-66 (presumption of reasonableness when sentence within properly calculated 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.
