Case Information
*1 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Lorenzo Ramirez-Arriaga appeals the 41-month, within-guidelines sentence he received following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. Ramirez- Arriaga argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He specifically contends that the guidelines sentencing range was too severe because the district court failed to consider his benign reasons for returning and his mother’s serious illness. *2 Case: 16-50030 Document: 00513725706 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 16-50030
Additionally, Ramirez-Arriaga asserts that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based, given that a defendant’s criminal history receives such heavy weight in the calculations.
We review sentences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the § 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). As he concedes, Ramirez-Arriaga’s empirical data argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, Ramirez-Arriaga’s sentence, which is at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range, is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Rashad , 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). His general disagreement with the propriety of his sentence and the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Gomez-Herrera , 523 F.3d at 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).
Ramirez-Arriaga has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a within-guidelines sentence of 41 months in prison. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. Consequently, the judgment of the district court 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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.