Case: 11-50499 Document: 00511769429 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2012
§ 3553(a). Castillo contends that the Guidelines that govern illegal reentry
offenses produced an unreasonable sentence because they resulted in double-
counting of his criminal history and failed to account for the nonviolent nature
of his offense, which he characterizes as an international trespass. He also
argues that the district court failed to consider his personal circumstances and
his motive for returning to the United States.
We review the sentence for reasonableness in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005).
A “sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively
reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). “The
presumption is 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
As Castillo concedes, he did not object to the substantive reasonableness
of his sentence. Although Castillo maintains that we should review his sentence
for an abuse of discretion, under our precedents review is for plain error. See
United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v.
Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir. 1994). To prevail under the plain error
standard, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects
his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but
only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. See id.
We have rejected the argument that a sentence is rendered unreasonable
because application of the Guidelines results in double-counting of a prior
criminal conviction. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 & n.2 (5th
Cir. 2009). Similarly, we have not been persuaded by the contention that the