United States v. Hernandez-Medrano

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50616
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS HERNANDEZ-MEDRANO, also known as Jesus Medrano-Hernandez,
also known as Jesus Medrano,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 19-50617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS HERNANDEZ-MEDRANO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-19-1
USDC No. 4:12-CR-24-3

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-50616 Document: 00515323381 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2020

No. 19-50616
c/w No. 19-50617
2
Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Jesus Hernandez-Medrano challenges the sentence imposed for his
guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that
the within-guidelines sentence of 66 months of imprisonment was greater than
necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and therefore
is substantively unreasonable. Because he has not challenged his revocation
judgment or sentence on appeal, the revocation judgment is AFFIRMED. See
United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010).
We review “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed
under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Because the sentence falls within the properly calculated advisory
guidelines range, it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United
States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
In previous cases, we have rejected the arguments that Hernandez-
Medrano raises on appeal. We have not been persuaded that the offense of
illegal reentry is treated too harshly under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because it is in
essence an international trespass. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513
F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). We have also rejected the contention that
§ 2L1.2’s double-counting of a defendant’s criminal history necessarily renders
a sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31
(5th Cir. 2009). Further, Hernandez-Medrano’s contention that his allegedly
benign motives for returning to the United States warranted a lesser sentence
is unavailing. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-50616 Document: 00515323381 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2020

No. 19-50616
c/w No. 19-50617
3
Cir. 2008). His arguments amount to a request for this court to reweigh the
sentencing factors, which we will not do. See United States v. Martinez, 921
F.3d 452, 483 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 2019 WL 6257514 (U.S. Nov. 25,
2019) (No. 19-6375).
Hernandez-Medrano has not shown that the district court failed to
consider any significant factors, gave undue weight to any improper factors, or
clearly erred in balancing the sentencing factors; thus, he has not rebutted the
presumption of reasonableness. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Accordingly, the
district court’s judgment regarding his illegal-reentry conviction is
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-50616 Document: 00515323381 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2020