United States v. Vanchaik-Molinar

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-50896
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN PABLO VANCHAIK-MOLINAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-2762-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Pablo Vanchaik-Molinar (Vanchaik) appeals his
guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the
United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. He first argues that, because his fraudulently obtained
visa had not been revoked at the time he presented it, he did not
illegally reenter the United States.
Vanchaik frames his argument as a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence. A voluntary guilty plea waives all

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-50896
-2-
non-jurisdictional defects that occurred prior to the plea and
precludes consideration of a claim challenging the sufficiency of
the evidence. See United States v. Hanyard, 762 F.2d 1226,
1229-30 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the argument is waived and
the conviction is affirmed.
Vanchaik also argues that his 51-month sentence was
unreasonable because he returned to the United States only to
shop and he had no intention to remain. This court reviews
post-Booker sentences for reasonableness. United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005); United States v. Mares, 402
F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).
The district court sentenced Vanchaik within a properly
calculated guideline range. As such, we infer that the court
considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the
Guidelines and presume, absent rebuttal, that Vanchaik’s sentence
was reasonable. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519; United States v.
Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we also
affirm Vanchaik’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --