Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40698/USCOURTS-ca5-09-40698-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Roberto Mendez-Uriza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40697

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS ROBERTO MENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Consolidated with No. 09-40698

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS ROBERTO MENDEZ-URIZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-556-1

USDC No. 1:09-CR-240-ALL

Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 4, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 09-40698 Document: 00511099862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2010
No. 09-40697 c/w 09-40698

2

Luis Roberto Mendez, a.k.a. Luis Roberto Mendez-Uriza, pleaded guilty

to being unlawfully found in the United States after deportation and after

having committed a felony. As a result of this offense, his supervised release for

his prior conviction of transporting an illegal alien into the United States and of

being unlawfully found in the United States after deportation was revoked. He

was sentenced within the recommended guidelines range to 57 months of

imprisonment for being unlawfully found in the United States and to six months

of imprisonment on the revocation of his supervised release, to be served

consecutively.

Mendez argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because

the district court did not provide adequate reasons for it. Because Mendez did

not object concerning the district court’s explanation of his sentence at

sentencing, we review the issue for plain error only. See United States v.

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192

(2009). Mendez concedes that plain error is the proper standard of review, but

he preserves for further review the issue whether plain error is the correct

standard of review. 

To show plain error, a defendant must show a forfeited error that is clear

or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 129

S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If the defendant makes such a showing, this court has

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

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. 

Even if the district court’s explanation was insufficient and therefore

constituted clear or obvious error, Mendez concedes that he cannot show that an

explanation of his within-guidelines sentence would have changed his sentence

and thus affected his substantial rights. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at

364-65. Mendez contends that the district court’s error affected his substantial

rights because it prevented this court from conducting a thorough review of the

substantive reasonableness of his sentence. However, as Mendez concedes, this

 Case: 09-40698 Document: 00511099862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2010
No. 09-40697 c/w 09-40698

3

argument is foreclosed under Mondragon-Santiago. See Mondragon-Santiago,

564 F.3d at 365. 

Mendez also argues that his aggregate sentence of 63 months of

imprisonment was substantively unreasonable. Mendez preserved this issue by

objecting in the district court as to his 57-month sentence, but not as to his sixmonth revocation sentence, which will be reviewed for plain error only. See

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Mendez argues that a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to

his within-guidelines sentence because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is “penologically flawed”

due to, inter alia, the fact that his 16-level enhancement was not based on

empirical evidence or study. Mendez concedes that this issue is foreclosed, and

he asserts that he is raising it to preserve it for further appellate review. As

Mendez concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d

at 367. 

Mendez also argues that the 16-level increase in his offense level

“overpunishe[d]” him for a “garden-variety prior alien-transporting offense,

where apparently no one was injured.” He contends that the length of his

aggregate 63-month sentence is particularly unjust given that he only returned

to the United States to retrieve his daughter from the custody of his exgirlfriend. 

Because Mendez’s 57-month sentence for being unlawfully found in the

United States was within the guidelines range and because Mendez has not

shown that the district court did not give proper weight to the Guidelines and

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, his sentence was presumptively

reasonable and entitled to great deference. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d

at 338. Mendez has not rebutted this presumption, and thus he has not shown

that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to 57 months of

imprisonment. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Likewise, he has not shown that the

district court committed plain error in sentencing within the recommended

 Case: 09-40698 Document: 00511099862 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2010
No. 09-40697 c/w 09-40698

4

guidelines range for the revocation of his supervised release. See U.S.S.G.

§ 7B1.3(f); Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 259-60.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-40698 Document: 00511099862 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/04/2010