United States v. Mario Urena-Ocampo

Case: 14-41110 Document: 00513082881 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-41110
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 17, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARIO URENA-OCAMPO, also known as Mario Ocampo-Urena,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:14-CR-435-1
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Mario Urena-Ocampo pleaded guilty of illegal entry following
deportation, and he was sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines range to
a 41-month term of imprisonment. Urena-Ocampo contends that the sentence
is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain its
reasons for the sentence imposed and substantively unreasonable because the
district court did not account for Urena-Ocampo’s arguments for a more lenient
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-41110 Document: 00513082881 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2015
No. 14-41110
sentence based on familial ties and responsibilities. He invokes U.S.S.G.
§ 5H1.6, comment. (n.1(B)). He contends that the district court committed
procedural error in failing to expressly reject his contentions and substantive
error in failing to account for his familial ties and responsibilities.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences are
reviewed for procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th
Cir. 2010). Because Urena-Ocampo did not object to the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, our review is for plain error. See
United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain
error, Urena-Ocampo must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and
that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct
the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.
When, as here, “the judge exercises her discretion to impose a sentence
within the Guideline range and states for the record that she is doing so, little
explanation is required.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.
2005). The record reflects that the district court considered Urena-Ocampo’s
arguments and the presentence report before imposing a within-guidelines
sentence because of the seriousness of Urena-Ocampo’s prior conviction for
aggravated assault, the circumstances of which, the court indicated, undercut
his contention that he was motivated by his desire to support his family. See
United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). No error
has been shown, plain or otherwise, with respect to the adequacy of the district
court’s explanation for the sentence imposed.
2
Case: 14-41110 Document: 00513082881 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2015
No. 14-41110
Urena-Ocampo has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
applicable to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Rodriguez,
523 F.3d 519, 525-26 (5th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Harrington, 82
F.3d 83, 90 (5th Cir. 1996) (noting that the imposition of prison sentences
normally disrupts familial relationships). The judgment is AFFIRMED.
3