From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Gallegos-Ortiz

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jan 27, 2015
591 F. App'x 283 (5th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 14-10812

01-27-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN MANUEL GALLEGOS-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant


Summary Calendar 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:

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

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.

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.


Summaries of

United States v. Gallegos-Ortiz

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jan 27, 2015
591 F. App'x 283 (5th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Gallegos-Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN MANUEL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 27, 2015

Citations

591 F. App'x 283 (5th Cir. 2015)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Polgar

New Mexico Stat Ann § 70-2-6 and its predecessors extend abstracters' liability to "any person * * * acting…

State v. Southern Pac. Co.

The primary object and purpose of the act is therefore clearly expressed. If there be some uncertainty or…