United States v. Jaime Carretero , 430 F. App'x 300 ( 2011 )

Case: 10-50013 Document: 00511516908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 22, 2011
No. 10-50013
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAIME PANTOJA CARRETERO, also known as Jaime Carretero, also known
as Andres Garcia,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:09-CR-490-1
Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jaime Pantoja Carretero appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following
his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having
been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Carretero challenges the district
court’s decision to depart upward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. He argues that
his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary
to achieve the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 10-50013 Document: 00511516908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2011
No. 10-50013
Because Carretero did not object to his sentence in the district court,
review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429
(2009). To demonstrate plain error, Carretero must show a forfeited error that
is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Id. If he makes such
a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it “‘seriously
affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id.(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736
(1993)).
Carretero has failed to demonstrate that his 70-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable. The district court’s stated reasons for its decision
to impose a departure advances § 3553(a)’s objectives of promoting respect for
the law and providing deterrence and are justified by the facts of the case. See
United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347-48 (5th Cir. 2006). Further,
Carretero’s 70-month sentence represents a 19-month upward departure from
the top of his advisory guidelines range and is within the statutory maximum.
See § 1326. We have affirmed far more substantial departures than the one
imposed in this case. See e.g., United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491-93 &
n.40 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 312 (5th Cir. 2005).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2