USA v. Ramon Valdez-Jaime, No. 16-10183 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10183 Document: 00513677261 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10183 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 14, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAMON VALDEZ-JAIME, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CR-70-1 Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ramon Valdez-Jaime appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He asserts that his sentence, which resulted from the district court upwardly varying from the advisory guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable. According to ValdezJaime, the district court afforded excessive weight to his remote prior offenses, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10183 Document: 00513677261 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2016 No. 16-10183 most of which were not assessed any criminal history points, and failed to give sufficient weight to his personal circumstances. In this court, Valdez-Jaime has not demonstrated that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court had an adequate basis for the sentence imposed and was guided by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in concluding that an upward variance was merited. The district court made an individualized assessment and found that the guidelines range did not properly account for the § 3553(a) factors. ValdezJaime’s criminal history was a suitable factor for the district court to consider in imposing an upward variance, see United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006), and the district court was not required to afford his personal circumstances dispositive weight, see United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). His disagreement with the sentence imposed and the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish that the district court abused its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 522 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The totality of the circumstances reflects that his 60month sentence, which was 27 months above the top of the advisory guidelines range, was not so disproportionate as to overcome the factors that warranted its imposition. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (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.
