United States v. Francisco Rodriguez-Alvarez, 668 F. App'x 556

Defendant Francisco Rodriguez-Alvarez was convicted of illegal reentry after removal and had supervised release revoked for a prior illegal-reentry offense; the district court imposed a 78-month term for reentry and an 18-month consecutive revocation term.
Rodriguez-Alvarez did not object at sentencing to the substantive reasonableness of either sentence in district court.
Both sentences fell within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines (the reentry sentence within §2L1.2 range; the revocation sentence within the policy-statement range).
Rodriguez-Alvarez argued on appeal that the combined sentence was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), emphasizing (1) that §2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis and overstates nonviolent trespass seriousness, (2) double-counting of prior convictions, and (3) his advanced age warranted a shorter sentence. He acknowledged some arguments were foreclosed but preserved them for further review.
The panel reviewed for plain error because no objection was made below and applied the presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentences.
The court concluded the district court considered §3553(a) factors (including age and criminal history), and Rodriguez-Alvarez failed to show plain error; the judgments were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentences are substantively unreasonable under §3553(a)	Rodriguez-Alvarez: combined sentences greater than necessary; age and mitigation warrant shorter terms	Government: within-Guidelines sentences presumptively reasonable; district court properly weighed §3553(a) factors	Court: Affirmed; presumption of reasonableness applies and no plain error shown
Whether §2L1.2 lacks empirical basis and should not get presumption	Rodriguez-Alvarez: §2L1.2 is not empirically derived and overstates offense seriousness	Government: controlling precedent forecloses challenge; §2L1.2 applies	Court: Argument foreclosed by precedent; presumption stands
Whether double-counting of prior convictions renders guideline sentence unreasonable	Rodriguez-Alvarez: guideline double-counts criminal history, inflating sentence	Government: precedent rejects this as a basis to reduce sentence	Court: Rejected; prior Fifth Circuit decisions uphold guidelines
Standard of review for unpreserved substantive-reasonableness claim	Rodriguez-Alvarez: substantive-reasonableness need not be objected to below; plain-error inapplicable (cites circuit split)	Government: Fifth Circuit requires plain-error review for unpreserved challenges	Held: Fifth Circuit precedent requires plain-error review; claim reviewed for plain error and failed

United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpreserved reasonableness objections reviewed for plain error)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error standard explained)
United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2008) (within-Guidelines sentences entitled to presumption of reasonableness)
United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2008) (same: presumption for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2009) (rejects challenge to §2L1.2’s empirical basis)
United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (rejects argument that §2L1.2 overstates seriousness)
United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2008) (addresses double-counting of prior convictions)
United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2016) (defendant’s disagreement with court’s §3553(a) weighing insufficient to rebut presumption)
United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (same: presumption of reasonableness not overcome by disagreement)