Opinion
Nos. 09-50377, 09-50378 Summary Calendar.
February 3, 2010.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 3:08-CR-3407-1, USDC No. 3:05-CR-9-1.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Noe Reyes Barraza-Montes De Oca (Barraza) appeals following his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, illegal reentry and the concomitant revocation of his supervised release related to a prior conviction for illegal reentry. Barraza was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment and a consecutive 18-month term of imprisonment for violating the terms of his supervised release.
Barraza contends that his 41-month sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Barraza argues that the non-violent nature of the illegal reentry offense and his motive for reentering mitigate the seriousness of the offense. Barraza also argues that § 2L1.2 double-counts criminal history without an empirical basis. Barraza's appellate arguments fail to establish that his sentence was unreasonable.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Barraza contends that the 18-month revocation sentence was unreasonable because it constituted an additional punishment for his new offense, instead of a penalty for his breach of trust for violating the terms of his supervised release. Barraza also argues that the sentence was unreasonable because it was imposed consecutively to the sentence for illegal reentry. Barraza's appellate arguments fail to establish that his sentence was unreasonable or plainly unreasonable.
See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 791-92 (5th Cir. 2007).
The sentences are AFFIRMED.