USA v. Lorenzo Ramirez-Arriaga, No. 16-50030 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-50030 Document: 00513725706 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-50030 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 19, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LORENZO RAMIREZ-ARRIAGA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:15-CR-383-1 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lorenzo Ramirez-Arriaga appeals the 41-month, within-guidelines sentence he received following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. RamirezArriaga argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He specifically contends that the guidelines sentencing range was too severe because the district court failed to consider his benign reasons for returning and his mother’s serious illness. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-50030 Document: 00513725706 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 No. 16-50030 Additionally, Ramirez-Arriaga asserts that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based, given that a defendant’s criminal history receives such heavy weight in the calculations. We review sentences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the § 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). As he concedes, Ramirez-Arriaga’s empirical data argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, Ramirez-Arriaga’s sentence, which is at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range, is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). His general disagreement with the propriety of his sentence and the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Ramirez-Arriaga has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a within-guidelines sentence of 41 months in prison. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Consequently, 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.
