United States v. Hernandez-Jimenez ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10690 Document: 00516608071 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10690
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ January 12, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Fidelmar Hernandez-Jimenez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CR-457-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Fidelmar Hernandez-Jimenez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the
United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. He contends that the
district court failed to adequately respond to his arguments for a lesser
sentence. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
affirmance, asserting that Hernandez-Jimenez’s challenge to the adequacy of
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10690 Document: 00516608071 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
No. 22-10690
the sentence explanation is foreclosed by United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986
F.3d 583 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207 (2021). Alternatively, the
Government requests an extension of thirty days in which to file a merits
brief.
Although Hernandez-Jimenez concedes that his challenge to the
adequacy of the district court’s explanation of his sentence is foreclosed,
review of this argument entails a more involved analysis than is appropriate
for a summary affirmance case. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d
1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, we DENY the motion for summary
affirmance. However, because this case may be resolved without further
briefing, we also DENY, as unnecessary, the Government’s alternative
motion for an extension of time. See United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289,
1290 (5th Cir. 2019).
Because Hernandez-Jimenez did not object to the district court’s
failure to address his arguments for a below guidelines sentence, we review
only for plain error. See Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 585-86. In this case, the
record reflects that the district court “listened to each argument . . . then
simply found these circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower
than the Guidelines range.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007).
Notwithstanding the brief nature of its explanation, the district court’s
explanation suffices to show that it considered the parties’ arguments and
had a reasoned basis for its sentence. See United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d
728, 732 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, Hernandez-Jimenez failed to
demonstrate plain error in the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of
the sentence. See Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 587.
AFFIRMED.
2