Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50157/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50157-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Patricio Ibarra-Lara
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50157

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JOSE PATRICIO IBARRA-LARA,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-614-1

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Patricio Ibarra-Lara appeals his 30-month above-advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines sentence, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction 

for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ibarra asserts the district 

court committed error when it assigned two criminal-history points because 

the illegal reentry offense was committed while Ibarra was under a criminal 

justice sentence of probation. 

* 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

December 31, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50157 Document: 00512886993 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/31/2014
No. 14-50157

Because Ibarra failed to raise this objection in district court, our review 

is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 

2007). Under that standard, Ibarra 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.

As the Government concedes, the two points were assessed in error, and 

the error was clear or obvious. E.g., United States v. Blocker, 612 F.3d 413, 

416 (5th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, the error does not warrant reversal. 

Regarding whether the error affected Ibarra’s substantial rights, 

although he was sentenced above an incorrectly calculated advisory Guidelines 

range, the court explained the above-Guidelines sentence reflected the 

seriousness of the offense. It emphasized Ibarra had returned to the United 

States despite previously serving 24-months’ imprisonment for illegal reentry

and concluded that nothing short of a 30-month sentence would prevent Ibarra 

from reoffending. (In that regard, Ibarra concedes it is unlikely the district 

court would have imposed a sentence of less than 24 months.) “[W]e are 

skeptical that [Ibarra] has met his burden of showing a reasonable probability 

that, but for the district court’s consideration of the incorrect advisory range, 

his sentence would have been lower”. United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643,

650 (5th Cir. 2010). In the alternative, based on the facts of this case, we 

decline to exercise our discretion to remand. E.g., id. at 650-51. 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50157 Document: 00512886993 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/31/2014