USA v. Juan Flores, No. 13-50837 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-50837 Document: 00512651208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-50837 Summary Calendar FILED June 3, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN MANUEL LIRA FLORES, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:13-CR-21-1 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Manuel Lira Flores appeals from the 57-month within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50837 Document: 00512651208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2014 No. 13-50837 We review Lira Flores s challenge to his sentence under an abuse of discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the sentence was within the advisory guidelines imprisonment range, we afford the sentence a presumption of substantive reasonableness. United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d 681, 695 (5th Cir. 2013). Lira Flores asserts that the sentence imposed was greater than necessary because the illegal-reentry guideline lacks an empirical basis, his criminal history was effectively double-counted, his crime of conviction was a type of international trespass, and the guidelines range failed to reflect his personal history and circumstances. He has not made the showing necessary to overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded his sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The record reflects that the district court considered Lira Flores s mitigation arguments and ultimately concluded that a sentence at the top of the applicable guidelines range was appropriate based on the circumstances of the case and the § 3553(a) factors. The fact that we might reasonably conclude that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Accordingly, 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.
