United States v. Gabriel Mendoza

Case: 19-50116 Document: 00515301395 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-50116 FILED
Summary Calendar
February 6, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
GABRIEL MENDOZA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:11-CR-157-1
Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Gabriel Mendoza appeals the 24-month and 60-month prison terms
imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that
the above-guidelines sentences are procedurally unreasonable.
This argument was not raised in the district court, and we will review it
only for plain error. See United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir.
2012). To prevail on plain error review, Mendoza must show a forfeited error
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-50116 Document: 00515301395 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
No. 19-50116
that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v.
United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If Mendoza 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.” Id. at 135
(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
Mendoza’s contention that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to adequately explain its sentences is contradicted by the record. Mendoza
asked for within-guidelines sentences, and the Government emphasized
Mendoza’s substantial history of noncompliance with the conditions of
supervised release. Just before imposing Mendoza’s sentences, the district
court stated that it was taking that substantial history into account. Although
the district court did not expressly discuss the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, the record indicates that it considered them, and in any event, “implicit
consideration of the § 3553 factors is generally sufficient,” Kippers, 685 F.3d at
498 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). Thus, Mendoza
has failed to show clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Further,
he has not shown that any deficiency in the explanation affected his
substantial rights, as he has not shown that a more detailed explanation would
have resulted in lower sentences. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256,
264-65 (5th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2