United States v. Rodriguez-Martinez ( 2023 )

Case: 23-50133 Document: 00516931134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50133
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ October 13, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jose Luis Rodriguez-Martinez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:22-CR-120-1
______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jose Luis Rodriguez-Martinez appeals the above-guidelines sentence
imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry into the United States
after removal. He argues that his 33-month sentence as an upward variance
is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed adequately to
explain the sentence. Rodriguez-Martinez further argues that his sentence is
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50133 Document: 00516931134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/13/2023
No. 23-50133
substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary given the
nature of his offense and that his criminal history did not justify the sentence
imposed.
Because Rodriguez-Martinez failed to object to the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of his sentence and did not also advocate for a
lower sentence, we review his sentence only for plain error. See United States
v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); cf. Holguin-
Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764–67 (2020). To establish plain
error, Rodriguez-Martinez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious
and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
135 (2009). If he makes this showing, we have the discretion to remedy the
error but will do so only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets,
and citation omitted).
Contrary to Rodriguez-Martinez’s assertions, the record reflects that
the district court gave specific reasons for the sentence, emphasizing his
criminal history. Accordingly, Rodriguez-Martinez has not shown that the
district court’s explanation of his sentence was inadequate, plainly or
otherwise. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007); United States v.
Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006).
Finally, a district court has the discretion to determine that the
advisory guidelines range gives too much or too little weight to one or more
factors and may conclude that a within-guidelines sentence would be
insufficient to serve the objectives of sentencing. See United States v.
Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809–11 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, the record reflects that
the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determined
that, due to Rodriguez-Martinez’s numerous prior felony offenses, an above-
guidelines sentence was necessary to impose a just sentence, to deter future
2
Case: 23-50133 Document: 00516931134 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/13/2023
No. 23-50133
criminal conduct, to promote respect for the law, and to protect the public.
We have affirmed sentences well above the guidelines range in illegal reentry
cases where the defendant had prior felony convictions. See, e.g., United
States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,
Rodriguez-Martinez’s substantive reasonableness argument fails to show
that the district court abused its discretion, plainly or otherwise. See United
States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
3