United States v. Mendez

<!-- PageHeader="Case: 19-40991" -->
<!-- PageHeader="Document: 00515511364" -->

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
July 31, 2020

No. 19-40991
Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS MENDEZ,

Defendant- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:19-CR-292-1

Before CLEMENT, HIGGINSON, AND ENGELHARDT, CIRCUIT
JUDGES.

PER CURIAM :*

Juan Carlos Mendez appeals the within-guidelines sentence of 84
months in prison imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy
to harbor an alien within the United States. See 8 U.S.C.

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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="Case: 19-40991" -->
<!-- PageHeader="Document: 00515511364" -->
<!-- PageHeader="Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2020" -->

No. 19-40991

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), (a)(1)(A)(iii), & (a)(1)(B)(i). Mendez contends that
his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to
account sufficiently for his role as caretaker for certain members of his family.

We review a preserved challenge to the substantive reasonableness of
a sentence under the abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Mendez requested a 37-month term of imprisonment,
thus preserving his challenge. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S.
Ct. 762, 764, 766-67 (2020).

In setting a sentence, the district court considered Mendez's
discussion of his family difficulties and the assistance he provides to family
members. The district court also weighed Mendez's lengthy and repetitious
criminal history. Mendez fails to show that his sentence does not account for
a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in
balancing sentencing factors. See United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214
(5th Cir. 2013). Ultimately, Mendez simply disagrees with the sentence
chosen by the district court and so fails to overcome the presumption that the
district court imposed a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621
F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). He thus also fails to show that the district court
abused its discretion in setting the within-guidelines sentence. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51; Jenkins, 712 F.3d at 214.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.