USA v. Juan Aguilar-Osorto, No. 15-50292 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-50292 Document: 00513270685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50292 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 13, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN CARLOS AGUILAR-OSORTO, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:14-CR-186 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Juan Carlos Aguilar-Osorto was convicted of illegal reentry and received a within-guidelines sentence of 41 months of imprisonment followed by a threeyear term of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As Aguilar-Osorto raised this 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-50292 Document: 00513270685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 No. 15-50292 objection below, our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is accorded a presumption of reasonableness and is rebutted only if the district court fails to consider a significant factor, gives weight to an irrelevant factor, or clearly errs in balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Aguilar-Osorto’s empirical basis challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 52931 (5th Cir. 2009). We have rejected the argument that a sentence imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is greater than necessary to meet the § 3553(a) goals as a result of any double counting inherent in that Guideline, see Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31, as well as the argument that illegal reentry is merely an international trespass offense, see United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Aguilar-Osorto’s remaining arguments are nothing more than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient to show the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (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.
