Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0239-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis ZUNIGA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40132
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 13, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq., Law Office of Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Luis Zuniga-Hernandez (Zuniga) appeals his 87-month, above-Guidelines sentences imposed for being found in the United States illegally and being an alien in possession of firearm. He argues only that the district court imposed unreasonable sentences by failing to explain adequately its reasons for the sentences imposed.

A district court commits procedural error by “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence[s] — including an explanation for any deviation[s] from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). However, because Zuniga did not object to the district court’s alleged failure during the sentencing hearing, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009). Zuniga does not attempt to show, and therefore cannot succeed in showing, that the district court plainly erred by failing to explain adequately its reasons for imposing the sentences. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.