USA v. Juan Diaz-Rebollar, No. 15-51160 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-51160 Document: 00513663850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-51160 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 2, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN DIAZ-REBOLLAR, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:15-CR-382-1 Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Diaz-Rebollar challenges the 60-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the non-guidelines sentence, which is above the advisory guidelines range of 21 to 27 months, is unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-51160 Document: 00513663850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2016 No. 15-51160 This court reviews the sentence for substantive reasonableness under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In Diaz-Rebollar’s case, the district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines sentence, allowed the parties to present argument, and considered the § 3553(a) factors in light of his personal characteristics, criminal history, and the need for the sentence to deter criminal conduct. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 53; § 3553(a). Additionally, this court has upheld above-guidelines sentences of similar or greater magnitudes. See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433, 442 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Daughenbaugh, 49 F.3d 171, 174-75 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court 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.