United States v. Perez-Garcia ( 2022 )

Case: 21-11235 Document: 00516340821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 2, 2022
No. 21-11235
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Erika Perez-Garcia,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-72-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Erika Perez-Garcia appeals the within-guidelines 57-month sentence
imposed following her guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. She concedes
that the district court provided adequate reasons to support the prison term
but asserts that the court was further obligated under Rita v. United States,
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-11235 Document: 00516340821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2022
No. 21-11235
551 U.S. 338 (2007), to specifically address her nonfrivolous arguments for
a below-guidelines sentence. We review this forfeited objection for plain
error. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207 (2021).
The record as a whole reflects that the district court considered Perez-
Garcia’s arguments for a lesser sentence, including that she had been brought
to the United States as a young child, had attended public schools, almost
qualified for derivative citizenship, suffered from mental health issues and
poverty, and had returned to the United States only to be with her children.
The court’s stated explanation for the within-guidelines sentence provided a
reasoned basis for it. Accordingly, the court did not err by failing to reference
each of Perez-Garcia’s arguments. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 343-45, 356, 358-59;
Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 584, 586-87 & nn.4-6; United States v. Becerril-
Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2013). The judgment of the district court
is therefore AFFIRMED.
The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED as
MOOT. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969). In the interest of judicial economy, the alternative motion for an
extension of time to file a brief on the merits is similarly DENIED as
MOOT.
2