United States v. Vela ( 2021 )

Case: 20-50572 Document: 00515838768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 20-50572
FILED
April 27, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jesus Martin Vela,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:17-CR-134
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jesus Martin Vela was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment after
his supervised release was revoked. On appeal, he contends that the 12-
month prison sentence at the high-end of the Guidelines was procedurally
and substantively unreasonable.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50572 Document: 00515838768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2021
Our review proceeds in two steps. First, we assess whether the district
court committed a “significant procedural error, such as failing to consider
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing adequately to explain the chosen sentence.” United
States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). If the sentence is
procedurally sound, we then review for substantive reasonableness. Id. “A
revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable if it (1) does not account
for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant
weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of
judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Badgett, 957
F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We apply a presumption of reasonableness to Vela’s within-Guidelines
revocation sentence. Id.When the defendant objects to his revocation sentence in the district
court, we review “under a ‘plainly unreasonable’ standard.” Warren, 720
F.3d at 326. But if the defendant fails to object, our review is for plain error.
Id. Here, Vela’s request for a below-Guidelines sentence was not sufficient
to preserve his claim of procedural error; consequently, we review his
procedural argument for plain error. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986
F.3d 583, 586 (5th Cir. 2021). We need not consider the extent to which
Vela’s claim of substantive error may not have been preserved because his
substantive-reasonableness argument fails regardless of the standard of
review. See United States v. Holguin-Hernandez, 955 F.3d 519, 520 n.1 (5th
Cir. 2020).
Vela’s procedural and substantive challenges are based on the same
principal argument: that the district court erroneously found and improperly
considered that he absconded from supervision. Though the district court
imprecisely used the term “absconded” in passing, context makes clear that
the court’s focus was how quickly Vela violated his conditions after being
2
Case: 20-50572 Document: 00515838768 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2021
released from custody. To the extent the district court relied on this at
sentencing, it was neither erroneous nor improper. See United States v.
Sanchez, 574 F. App’x 473, 473 (5th Cir. 2014); cf. United States v. McGee,
559 F. App’x 323, 330 n.33 (5th Cir. 2014). Insofar as Vela asserts that the
district court substantively erred by insufficiently accounting for factors that
should have received significant weight, his argument amounts to nothing
more than a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the applicable
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, which we will not reweigh. See Warren, 720 F.3d
at 332. Vela fails to show that his revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable
or that the district court plainly erred.
AFFIRMED.
3