United States v. Juan Gallegos-Ortiz

Case: 14-10812 Document: 00512916064 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-10812
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 27, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN MANUEL GALLEGOS-ORTIZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:14-CR-9-1
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Manuel Gallegos-Ortiz (Gallegos) appeals the 16-month within-
guidelines sentence he received following his guilty plea to illegal reentry, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, he contends that his
sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to
explain adequately the reasons for the sentence imposed, specifically failing to
address his mitigation arguments.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-10812 Document: 00512916064 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2015
No. 14-10812
Because Gallegos did not raise the objection below, review is for plain
error only. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir. 2013); see
also United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001). To establish
plain error, Gallegos 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). Even if he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to
correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
Given that the sentence imposed was within the guidelines range, little
explanation of the sentence was required, and the district court’s statement, in
response to Gallegos’s plea for a more lenient sentence, that a sentence at the
high end of the guidelines range was necessary for just punishment and
deterrence was sufficiently explanatory. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 356-57 (2007). Moreover, even if it is assumed that the district court’s
statement amounted to clear or obvious error, the error is not reversible given
that Gallegos has not shown that his substantial rights were affected. See
United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2009); United States
v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent that
Gallegos argues that Whitelaw and Mondragon-Santiago were wrongly
decided, the argument is unavailing. See United States v. Walker, 302 F.3d
322, 325 (5th Cir. 2002).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2