Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50777/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50777-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Manuel Rodriguez-Flores
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50777

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-510

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Manuel Rodriguez-Flores was convicted of illegal reentry into the 

United States and was sentenced to serve 24 months in prison. In this appeal, 

he contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than 

necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

As Rodriguez-Flores acknowledges, his arguments are reviewed for plain 

error due to his failure to object to his sentence in the district court. See United 

* 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 5, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50777 Document: 00512958491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2015
No. 14-50777

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

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 2007). To establish plain error, 

Rodriguez-Flores must show that the district court committed a clear or 

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

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Even if he does so, this court will correct the error 

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

proceedings. Id. He has not met this standard.

Initially, Rodriguez-Flores urges this court not to apply the presumption 

of reasonableness to his sentence because the applicable guideline, U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2, lacks an empirical basis. He correctly concedes that this court has 

rejected his argument, which he raises to preserve for further review. See 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67.

Next, Rodriguez-Flores contends that the district court’s application of 

the illegal reentry guideline resulted in a sentence that was too harsh because 

the guideline increased his offense level based on a temporally remote

conviction that was expunged. He further asserts that his sentence was 

unreasonably harsh because his offense was a nonviolent international 

trespass. Too, he believes that his cultural assimilation warranted a belowguidelines sentence. Finally, he contends that a downward variance was 

warranted because his return to this country was motivated by benign reasons. 

These arguments amount to little more than a disagreement with the sentence 

imposed, which does not suffice to show error. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 

F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50777 Document: 00512958491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2015