Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41242/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41242-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Alberto Flores-Flores
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41242

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ALBERTO FLORES-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-98-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Alberto Flores-Flores (Flores) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a 

previously deported alien and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines 

range to 41 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Flores challenges the 

procedural reasonableness of his sentence, focusing on the district court’s 

failure to adequately explain its sentencing decision. Flores specifically 

contends that the district court did not address his request for a downward 

 

* 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

June 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-41242 Document: 00513091583 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2015
No. 14-41242

2

variance based on his assertion that the 16-level enhancement, pursuant to 

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), lacked an empirical basis.

Because Flores did not object to the procedural reasonableness of his 

sentence in the district court, we apply plain error review. See United States 

v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). To prevail on plain 

error review, Flores must show a clear or obvious forfeited error that affected 

his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 

If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only 

if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial 

proceedings. Id.

Our review of the record indicates that the district court listened to and 

considered Flores’s arguments in favor of a downward variance and thoroughly

explained its reasons for imposing a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines 

range. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007). Moreover, Flores 

failed to address how the district court’s explanation of its sentencing decision

affected his substantial rights. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 365. 

Therefore, Flores did not show that the district court committed reversible 

plain error by inadequately explaining its sentencing decision. See Puckett, 

556 U.S. at 135. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-41242 Document: 00513091583 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2015