Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50715/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50715-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andres Chavira Corona
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50715

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRES CHAVIRA CORONA,

Defendant-Appellant

________________

Cons w/ 14-50718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRES CHAVIRA CORONA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-431-1

USDC No. 3:14-CR-1013-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-50715 Document: 00513000184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-50715

c/w No. 14-50718

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following his guilty plea to attempted illegal reentry and false 

personation in immigration matters, the district court sentenced Andres 

Chavira Corona (Chavira) to 33 months of imprisonment. The district court 

also revoked a term of supervised release that had been imposed following a 

previous illegal reentry conviction and imposed a revocation sentence of 24 

months of imprisonment, with 12 months of the sentence to run consecutive to 

the 33-month sentence that was imposed for the immigration offenses. 

Although he filed notices of appeal in both cases, Chavira’s attorney-prepared 

brief challenges only the revocation sentence. However, to the extent that 

Chavira intended to appeal the non-revocation sentence, his argument is 

waived because it is insufficiently briefed. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9); United 

States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under the “plainly 

unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 

2011). We do not address Chavira’s argument that this court should not 

employ the plainly unreasonable standard because Chavira did not preserve 

his arguments in the district court and the appeal is thus governed by the plain 

error standard of review. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 260 

(5th Cir. 2009). To demonstrate plain error, Chavira must show a forfeited 

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett 

v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this 

* 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.

2

 

Case: 14-50715 Document: 00513000184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-50715

c/w No. 14-50718

court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. 

The revocation sentence fell within the advisory range and was 

consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy regarding consecutive 

sentences. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s.; § 7B1.4, p.s. The sentence was thus 

entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 

468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006). Chavira had an extensive criminal history, resulting 

in 20 criminal history points and a criminal history category of VI. His 

arguments regarding the overstated seriousness of the offense and his personal 

circumstances amount to a mere disagreement with the district court’s balance 

of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors, and this court will not second-guess 

the district court’s balancing of those factors. See United States v. McElwee, 

646 F.3d 328, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2011). Chavira has not shown that the 

revocation sentence is plainly erroneous. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 260-61. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

3

Case: 14-50715 Document: 00513000184 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2015