USA v. Francisco Reyes-Salazar, No. 14-50812 (5th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-50812 Document: 00512976201 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 14-50812 Summary Calendar March 20, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FRANCISCO TOMAS REYES-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:14-CR-570-1 Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Francisco Tomas Reyes-Salazar (Reyes) appeals the sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Reyes argues that his within-guidelines 24-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserts that the district court should have sentenced him below the guidelines range 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-50812 Document: 00512976201 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2015 No. 14-50812 imprisonment because the unlawful reentry Guideline is not empirically based and effectively double counts a prior conviction and because his individual characteristics warranted a lower sentence. The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). As Reyes concedes, his arguments regarding the reentry Guideline are foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, he has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that applies to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (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.