Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10257/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10257-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Berrones-Vargas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10257

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO BERRONES-VARGAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-59-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Berrones-Vargas appeals the 71-month within-guidelines 

sentence he received following his guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, he contends that his sentence is 

procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately 

explain the reasons for the sentence imposed, specifically failing to address his 

mitigation arguments.

 

* 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

September 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10257 Document: 00513193437 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2015
No. 15-10257

2

Because Berrones-Vargas did not raise the objection below, review is for 

plain error only. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 

(5th Cir. 2009). To establish plain error, Berrones-Vargas 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). Even if he makes such a 

showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but will do so only if 

it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. Id. 

Given that the sentence imposed was within the guidelines range, little 

explanation of the sentence was required, and the district court’s statement, in 

response to Berrones-Vargas’s plea for a more lenient sentence, that a sentence 

at the high end of the guidelines range was necessary for just punishment and 

deterrence, was sufficiently explanatory. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 

338, 356-57 (2007). Moreover, even if it is assumed that the district court’s 

statement amounted to clear or obvious error, the error is not reversible given 

that Berrones-Vargas has not shown that his substantial rights were affected. 

See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2009); 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 365. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10257 Document: 00513193437 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2015