United States v. Arreola-Dominguez

Case: 21-51138 Document: 00516398611 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit FILED

July 19, 2022

No. 21-51138 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Bianca Arreola-Dominguez,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-585-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Bianca Arreola-Dominguez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and now appeals her 27-month sentence. She argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Case: 21-51138 Document: 00516398611 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2022

No. 21-51138

We lack jurisdiction to review Arreola-Dominguez’s argument that the district court erred by failing to depart downward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 627 (5th Cir. 2013). As to her remaining arguments, we consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Further, we presume that a within-guidelines sentence is reasonable. United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2013).

Arreola-Dominguez correctly concedes that her argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply because the illegal reentry Guideline lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, Arreola- Dominguez’s argument that the district court failed to consider the mitigating circumstances she presented is belied by the record. The district court considered Arreola-Dominguez’s mitigation arguments based on her cultural assimilation, her criminal history, and her reason for returning to the United States. It also considered the § 3553(a) factors before determining that a sentence at the top of the guidelines range was fair and reasonable. Arreola-Dominguez fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to her sentence by showing that the district court failed to consider a pertinent factor, considered an irrelevant or improper factor, or erred in balancing the sentencing factors. See Jenkins, 712 F.3d at 214.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.