Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10052/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Montoya-Correa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10052

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS MONTOYA-CORREA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-10

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Montoya-Correa appeals his 16-month sentence for illegal reentry 

into the United States. Montoya-Correa contends that his sentence is 

procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address his nonfrivolous argument for a guidelines departure based on his connection to the 

United States. He further asserts that the district court’s barebones invocation 

of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) considerations of punishment and deterrence,

 

* 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

August 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10052 Document: 00513157391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 15-10052

2

without discussing their specific application to the present case, failed to 

provide an adequate explanation of its sentencing decision.

Because Montoya-Correa did not object to the reasonableness of his 

sentence, we review the district court’s sentencing determination for plain 

error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 

2009); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). At sentencing, 

Montoya-Correa argued for a departure from the guidelines range of 10 to 16 

months based on his personal and familial connections to the United States. 

While the district court’s explanation of its within-guidelines sentence was 

terse and failed to specifically address Montoya-Correa’s arguments for a 

downward departure, the record reflects that the court listened to those 

arguments, expressly considered two of the § 3553(a) factors, and expressly 

adopted the findings and reasoning of the presentence report, which contained 

all of the information about Montoya-Correa’s personal and familial 

connections to the United States upon which his plea for leniency was based. 

Thus, the record makes clear that the district court listened to but rejected 

Montoya-Correa’s arguments for a downward departure. See Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); see also United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 

523 F.3d 554, 564 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 

525-26 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court’s explicit reference to the 

considerations of punishment and deterrence, in light of the whole record, 

suffices to “reflect adequate consideration of the § 3553(a) factors.” Rodriguez, 

523 F.3d at 525.

Montoya-Correa fails to demonstrate that the district court committed 

clear or obvious procedural error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Moreover, he 

fails to show “how a fuller explanation would have altered his sentence.” 

United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 2013). Absent such a 

 Case: 15-10052 Document: 00513157391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 15-10052

3

showing, he cannot demonstrate that the district court’s purported error

affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 

262-63 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent Montoya-Correa argues that Whitelaw

was wrongly decided, the argument is unavailing. See United States v. Walker, 

302 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10052 Document: 00513157391 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2015