Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11171/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11171-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Antonio Rivera-Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11171

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ANTONIO RIVERA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-127-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Antonio Rivera-Martinez pleaded guilty to one count of illegal 

reentry after deportation and received a within-guidelines sentence of 16 

months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. He now 

argues that the district court committed procedural error when it failed to 

adequately explain why it denied his request for a downward departure based 

on cultural assimilation and time spent in immigration custody.

 

* 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 30, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11171 Document: 00513575423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
No. 15-11171

2

We ordinarily engage in a bifurcated review of the sentence imposed by 

the district court, first considering whether the district court committed a 

“significant procedural error,” such as “failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence,” and then reviewing the substantive reasonableness of the sentence 

for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). RiveraMartinez concedes that he failed to object below but argues that strict 

application of a plain error standard of review should be mitigated by defense 

counsel’s explicit request that the court consider factors that it passed over in 

silence. Plain error review applies if the defendant fails to object with 

sufficient specificity in the district court, as occurred here. See United States 

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

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. PreciadoDelacruz, 801 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2015)(“generic” objections are not sufficiently

specificity to alert district court to the error), cert. denied, 84 U.S.L.W. 3631

(U.S. 2016). To show plain error, Rivera-Martinez must show a forfeited error 

that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. 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 judicial proceedings. Id.

Here, the district court explicitly stated that it had read and considered 

Rivera-Martinez’s request for a downward departure and listened to argument 

made by defense counsel at sentencing in support of the request. When 

imposing the within-guidelines sentence, the district court stated that it did so 

after consideration of the factual resume and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, and 

believed the sentence to be correct given all of the facts and circumstances. As 

the record demonstrates that the district court considered Rivera-Martinez’s

arguments for a downward departure and adequately explained the reasons 

 Case: 15-11171 Document: 00513575423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
No. 15-11171

3

for imposing the sentence it did, Rivera-Martinez has not shown a clear or 

obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 

356-59.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-11171 Document: 00513575423 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/30/2016