United States v. Milton Hidalgo-Segura

Case: 13-50207 Document: 00512543688 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-50207 FILED
Summary Calendar February 25, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MILTON WILFREDO HIDALGO-SEGURA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-1954-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Milton Wilfredo Hidalgo-Segura violated the terms of his supervised
release by illegally reentering this country, and the district court sentenced
him on revocation of his supervised release, within the advisory policy
guidelines range, to 12 months of imprisonment to run consecutively to his new
illegal reentry sentence. Hidalgo-Segura now appeals, arguing that the
sentence was greater than necessary to protect the public and deter him from
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-50207 Document: 00512543688 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2014
No. 13-50207
reoffending, in light of the fact that he has become quite religious and realized
that he would like to be a youth pastor in his native country, Guatemala.
Revocation sentences generally are reviewed under the “plainly
unreasonable” standard of 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4). United States v. Miller, 634
F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). When, as here, a defendant does not preserve
his objection for appeal, we review revocation sentences for plain error. United
States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). The Sentencing Guidelines
recommend revocation sentences be ordered to run consecutively to other
terms of imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4); see United States
v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing § 7B1.3(f)).
Hidalgo-Segura does not dispute that the revocation sentence fell within
the advisory range, and because it was consistent with the Guidelines’ advice
regarding concurrent or consecutive sentences, it is entitled to an appellate
presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526
F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that consecutive revocation sentence
that fell squarely within the guidelines range was presumptively reasonable).
Hidalgo-Segura has not rebutted that presumption, and the district court’s
revocation order is not plainly erroneous. AFFIRMED.
2