Case Information
*1 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Jose Ambriz-Rodriguez pleaded guilty of illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced, within the applicable guideline range, to forty-six months of imprisonment. He challenges the substantive *2 Case: 16-50370 Document: 00513779952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
No. 16-50370
reasonableness of the sentence, claiming that it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence within the guidelines is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). “The presumption is rebut- ted only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentenc- ing factors.” Id. As Ambriz-Rodriguez concedes, his theory that the presump- tion should not apply is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009).
We have repeatedly rejected arguments that a sentence is unreasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not based on empirical data or effectively double- counts prior offenses. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529–31 (5th Cir. 2009). Although Section 2L1.2 was recently amended, Ambriz-Rodriguez has not shown that the district court erred by applying the version of the guide- lines in effect at the time of sentencing. See United States v. Kimler, 167 F.3d 889, 893 (5th Cir. 1999); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a). Finally, the record reflects that the court heard and considered Ambriz-Rodriguez’s contentions regarding his history and characteristics, the need for deterrence, and his benign motive for reentry; his repetition of those arguments on appeal amounts to only a dis- agreement with the sentence and fails to rebut the presumption of reasonable- ness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2008).
The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.
2
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.