United States v. Luna-Cabral

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 9, 2009
No. 07-11006
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ARMANDO LUNA-CABRAL
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:06-CR-351-ALL
Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Armando Luna-Cabral appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following previous deportation. He
argues that the district court committed significant procedural error by imposing
a sentence within the pertinent guidelines range without giving specific reasons
for rejecting his nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a sentence below this range.
He also argues that the district court committed procedural error by treating the
Guidelines as mandatory.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
No. 07-11006
We review Luna-Cabral’s arguments for plain error because he raises
them for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564
F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, Luna-Cabral must show a
forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See
Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If he makes such a
showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but will do so only if
the error substantially affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings. Id.
Even if the district court erred by not providing adequate reasons for
rejecting Luna-Cabral’s arguments, he still has not shown that he should receive
relief on this claim. This is because Luna-Cabral has failed to show that a more
extensive explanation for his sentence would have resulted in his receiving a
different sentence. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364. Additionally, in
its written statement of reasons, the district court recognized that the
Guidelines “are advisory only.” Thus, Luna-Cabral’s argument that the district
court treated the Guidelines as mandatory is unavailing. See United States v.
Looney, 532 F.3d 392, 396 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 513 (2008).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2