Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

U.S. v. MARTINEZ-LEDESMA, 367 Fed.Appx. 501 (5th Cir. 2010)

367 Fed.Appx. 501

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2010-02-12
Topic
general

U.S. v. MARTINEZ-LEDESMA, 367 Fed.Appx. 501 (5th Cir. 2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NemecioMARTINEZ-LEDESMA, also known as Ignacio Salinas-Ledesma, also known asMacario Gonzalez-Martinez, also known as Ignacio Salinas L., also knownas Ignacio Salinas, also known as Raul Martinez-Lederma, also known asIgnacio Salinas Ledezma, also known as Raul Martinez Ledezma, also knownas Raul Martinez Ledezman, also known as Ledesma I. Salinas, also knownas Nemecio Ledezma Martinez, also known as Nemecio Martinez L., alsoknown as Jose Maria Flores-Ledezma, also known as Jose Flores,Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-50470 Conference Calendar.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. MARTINEZ-LEDESMA, 367 Fed.Appx. 501 (5th Cir. 2010). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

U.S. v. MARTINEZ-LEDESMA,367 Fed.Appx. 501(5th Cir. 2010)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nemecio
MARTINEZ-LEDESMA, also known as Ignacio Salinas-Ledesma, also known as
Macario Gonzalez-Martinez, also known as Ignacio Salinas L., also known
as Ignacio Salinas, also known as Raul Martinez-Lederma, also known as
Ignacio Salinas Ledezma, also known as Raul Martinez Ledezma, also known
as Raul Martinez Ledezman, also known as Ledesma I. Salinas, also known
as Nemecio Ledezma Martinez, also known as Nemecio Martinez L., also
known as Jose Maria Flores-Ledezma, also known as Jose Flores,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50470 Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 12, 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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 3:09-CR-307-1.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:fn*
Nemecio Martinez-Ledesma (Martinez) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal.See8 U.S.C. § 1326. He now appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 37 months. Martinez contends that his sentence was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and was therefore unreasonable. Specifically, Martinez argues that the guidelines range was too severe because United States Sentencing Guideline §2L1.2was not empirically based and gave excessive weight to his criminal history and to prior convictions more than 15 years old. He also argues that the guidelines range failed to account for his age and the decrease in recidivism that accompanies aging. He contends that the presumption of reasonableness applicable to within-guidelines sentences should not be applied in this case.Page 502

"A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable."UnitedStates v. Campos-Maldonado,531 F.3d 337,338(5th Cir.),cert. denied,___ U.S. ___,129 S.Ct. 328,172 L.Ed.2d 236(2008). Because Martinez did not object in the district court to the reasonableness of his sentence, review is for plain error.See United States v. Whitelaw,580 F.3d 256,259-60(5th Cir. 2009).

This court has consistently rejected Martinez's "empirical data" argument. SeeUnited States v. Duarte,569 F.3d 528,529-30(5th Cir.),cert. denied,___ U.S. ___,130 S.Ct. 378,175 L.Ed.2d 231(2009). The district court considered Martinez's request for a downward variance, and it ultimately determined that a sentence at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range was appropriate based on the circumstances of the case and the § 3553(a) factors. Martinez's assertions regarding §2L1.2's lack of an empirical basis, the age of his last conviction, the nonviolent nature of his offense, and his age are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.SeeCampos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 338. As Martinez has not demonstrated that the district court's imposition of a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was plain error, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
  2. 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. ↩