Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10750/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10750-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Santos Mondragon Benitez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10750

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SANTOS MONDRAGON BENITEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-15-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Santos Mondragon Benitez appeals the procedural reasonableness of his 

84-month sentence, which was imposed by the district court as an upward 

variance from the guidelines range. He argues that the district court 

committed procedural error by basing the upward variance, in part, on the 

need to protect the public, which he contends was based on an erroneous 

* 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 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10750 Document: 00515355579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
No. 19-10750

2

finding that he posed a danger to the public. He did not object to his sentence 

on this basis in the district court.

When, as in this case, an appellant fails to raise an objection to the 

procedural reasonableness of his sentence in the district court, our review of 

that challenge is for plain error only. See United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, the appellant argues that

plain error review should not apply, however, because he could not have 

objected to the alleged procedural error until the district court issued its 

written statement of reasons indicating that the variance was based, in part, 

on the need to protect the public. We need not decide whether plain error 

review applies because this sentencing claim fails even under the ordinary 

abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 

361 (5th Cir. 2010).

Although the district court made no explicit factual finding that the 

appellant was a danger to others, the record supports the district court’s 

determination that the need for the sentence to protect the public was one of 

several factors warranting a sentence above the guidelines range. The 

presentence report, which the district court adopted, set forth facts showing 

that the appellant engaged in criminal conduct without regard to the public’s 

safety, and the district court was within its discretion to consider those facts, 

which the appellant did not contest or establish to be materially untrue, 

inaccurate, or unreliable. See United States v. Soza, 874 F.3d 884, 897 (5th 

Cir. 2017).

The appellant has not shown that the district court selected the sentence 

based on clearly erroneous facts or committed any procedural error, much less 

a significant one, by imposing the upward variance based in part on the need 

to protect the public from further criminal conduct. See Gall v. United States, 

Case: 19-10750 Document: 00515355579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
No. 19-10750

3

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10750 Document: 00515355579 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2020