United States v. Franco-Pacheco ( 2023 )

Case: 22-11198 Document: 00516895569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-11198 September 14, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Santos Franco-Pacheco,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:22-CR-6-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Elrod, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Santos Franco-Pacheco appeals his sentence for illegal reentry. He
was serving a state burglary charge when he was sentenced in federal court
and requested the sentences be served concurrently. His request was denied
because the district court held the sentences were unrelated. Franco-
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11198 Document: 00516895569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2023
No. 22-11198
Pacheco now argues that the district court should have weighed the factors
in the guidelines section addressing persons with multiple sentences.
We review for plain error because the original request for concurrent
sentences was based on mitigating circumstances and so is unrelated to the
guidelines argument now before us. See United States v. Narez-Garcia, 819
F.3d 146, 150 (5th Cir. 2016).
We find no error in this case. The guidelines policy statement
instructs that district courts do nothing other than consider that sentences
can be made concurrent or consecutive. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d), p.s. &
comment. (n.4(A)). Neither the policy statement nor the commentary
requires the district court to explicitly weigh various factors. See United
States v. Lindsey, 969 F.3d 136, 140 (5th Cir. 2020). We are also unpersuaded
by his claim that there was a problematic discrepancy in the description of
the remainder of his state law sentence as the district court has access to the
PSR with the correct information prior to sentencing.
AFFIRMED.
2