USA v. Luis Valencia-Cardenas, No. 13-20737 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-20737 Document: 00512871800 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-20737 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 16, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. LUIS FRANCISCO VALENCIA-CARDENAS, also known as Luis Francisco Valencia, also known as Luis Francisco Valencia Cardenas, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-181-1 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Valencia-Cardenas appeals the within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his 33-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to take account of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-20737 Document: 00512871800 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2014 No. 13-20737 his cultural assimilation and the fact that his criminal history category of VI overrepresented his criminal history. In connection with that argument, he states the requirements for a downward departure for cultural assimilation pursuant to Application Note 8 to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. To the extent that Valencia-Cardenas contends that the district court erred in denying him a downward departure under Application Note 8 to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based upon cultural assimilation, we lack jurisdiction to review his claim. See United States v. Hernandez, 457 F.3d 416, 424 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, Valencia-Cardenas’s arguments regarding his cultural assimilation and criminal history are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness given to his within-guidelines sentence. See 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). Therefore, Valencia-Cardenas has failed to show that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. sentence is AFFIRMED. 2 His
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.
