Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20105/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20105

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-744-1

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Rodriguez challenges the 168-month sentence imposed for his 

conviction for possession, with intent to distribute, 500 grams or more of 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He claims the 

sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to 

adequately explain it.

* 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

January 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20105 Document: 00512894300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
No. 14-20105

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and 

a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for 

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must 

still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in 

deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of 

the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. 

E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

But, Rodriguez did not raise this issue in district court; therefore, review 

is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th 

Cir. 2012). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain (clear or 

obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the 

error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of the proceedings. Id.

At sentencing, the district court stated that it had considered the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. In any event, because the sentence 

imposed was within the advisory-Guidelines-sentencing range, little 

explanation of the sentence was required, Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 

356-57 (2007); and our court will infer the district court considered the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, e.g., United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 

(5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, even assuming arguendo the district court erred, 

Rodriguez has not shown that his substantial rights were affected. E.g., United 

States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-20105 Document: 00512894300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2015