United States v. Sanchez-Esparza ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40716 Document: 00516787150 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 14, 2023
No. 22-40716 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Armando Sanchez-Esparza,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:21-CR-1927-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Armando Sanchez-Esparza pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine. On appeal, Sanchez-Esparza challenges the
substantive reasonableness of his bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence of 135
months of imprisonment.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40716 Document: 00516787150 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2023
No. 22-40716
We review a preserved challenge to the substantive reasonableness of
a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.
2009). Because the district court is best able to assess the facts and make an
individualized determination, our review is “highly deferential.” United
States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). A sentence imposed within a properly
calculated guidelines range is “presumptively reasonable” and we infer that
the district court considered all the factors and considerations set forth in the
Guidelines and in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Campos-Maldonado,
531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). This presumption can be rebutted “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
sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
First, Sanchez-Esparza argues that the district court’s reliance on the
non-empirically-based methamphetamine Guideline rendered his sentence
substantively unreasonable. His argument is foreclosed by our well-settled
caselaw. See United States v. Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 485-86 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 142 S. Ct. 2790 (2022).
Second, Sanchez-Esparza has failed to show that an important factor
was overlooked, that an improper factor was given significant weight, or that
there was any error in the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors.
See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. We will not reweigh the sentencing factors and
will not substitute our own judgment for that of the district court, as Sanchez-
Esparza requests. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir.
2017).
AFFIRMED.
2