Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20319/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20319-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fredy Chino-Bernal
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20319

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FREDY CHINO-BERNAL, also known as Jose Villa Quiroz, also known as Jose 

Villa-Quiroz, also known as Fredy Chino-Bernah, also known as Fredy Chino 

Bernal, also known as Carlos Viegas, also known as Carlos Viega,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-153-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fredy Chino-Bernal appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He challenges, for the first time 

on appeal, the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. 

We review his claims of error for plain error. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20319 Document: 00513437639 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2016
No. 15-20319

2

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 390-92 (5th Cir. 2007). We need not decide whether the 

district court plainly erred by failing to adequately explain its finding that a 

PSR was unnecessary and whether this error affected Chino-Bernal’s 

substantial rights because we decline to exercise our discretion to correct any

error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). The district court 

addressed Chino-Bernal’s arguments for a lower sentence and indicated that 

it selected the sentence based on the length and escalating seriousness of 

Chino-Bernal’s criminal history. Therefore, the district court committed no 

error, plain or otherwise, in explaining the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 

551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007). Disagreement with the district court’s balancing 

of these factors, especially in light of the deference given to the district court, 

fails to show any error, plain or otherwise. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20319 Document: 00513437639 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2016