United States v. Gildardo Patt ( 2019 )

Case: 18-40712 Document: 00514916820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-40712
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 15, 2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
GILDARDO GERMAN PATT,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:17-CR-1101-1
Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Gildardo German Patt pleaded guilty to being found in the United States
after previous deportation and was sentenced within the sentencing guidelines
range to 46 months of imprisonment, with no supervised release term. Patt
argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because it
overrepresented his criminal history and did not adequately take into account
the remaining 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or his arguments that he returned
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 18-40712 Document: 00514916820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2019
No. 18-40712
to the United States to be with his children and that a long period of time had
passed since the imposition of a sentence for illegal reentry in 2002.
The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If a defendant fails
to object to the reasonableness of a sentence, it is reviewed for plain error. See
United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Although the
parties dispute whether plain-error review applies, we need not decide this
issue because Patt’s substantive reasonableness challenge fails even under the
abuse-of-discretion standard of review.
The record establishes that the district court considered Patt’s reason for
returning to the United States after deportation, as well as his criminal history
and whether it was overrepresented. His disagreement with the propriety of
his within-guidelines sentence does not rebut the presumption that his
sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th
Cir. 2010). He has not shown that his 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). Thus, he has failed to show that the district court committed any
error, plain or otherwise.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2