Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10966/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10966-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Robert Salinas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10966

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIKE ROBERT SALINAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:16-CR-15-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mike Robert Salinas pleaded guilty to bank robbery, a violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2113(d). After service of his original sentence, the district court 

revoked Salinas’s supervised release. It sentenced Salinas above the 

guidelines policy range of eight to 14 months to 18 months of imprisonment 

and stated, “I believe this addresses the issues of adequate deterrence and 

 

* 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

February 1, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10966 Document: 00513858180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2017
No. 16-10966

2

protection of the public.” Salinas argues that the district court failed to provide 

a meaningful explanation for imposing a sentence above the advisory range.

As Salinas concedes, our review is for plain error because he failed to 

object in the district court to the judge’s explanation of the above-range 

sentence. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Under plain-error review, Salinas “must show an error that is clear or obvious 

and affects his substantial rights.” Id. The district court commits a clear or 

obvious error when it fails to state reasons for a sentence outside the guidelines 

range. Id. at 262. However, the district court need not engage in a “checklist 

recitation of the [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Smith, 440 

F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). This court may infer a district court’s reasons 

from the record. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 263.

The record reflects that the court explicitly considered deterrence and 

protection of the public in imposing the above-range sentence upon revocation

and implicitly considered Salinas’s history and characteristics. § 3553(a)(1), 

(a)(2)(B)-(C); Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 263-64. Although the district court’s 

statement in imposing sentence was brief, the explanation was sufficient in the 

context of the revocation hearing. Salinas thus has not shown clear or obvious 

error, nor has he shown that any potential error affected his substantial rights, 

as he has not demonstrated that a more thorough explanation would have 

resulted in a lower sentence. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264-65.

Finally, Salinas suggests that this court should overrule Whitelaw and 

hold that a judge’s failure to explain a sentence deprives the defendant of 

meaningful appellate review. However, this court may not overrule Whitelaw

without an en banc or a superseding Supreme Court decision. United States v. 

Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002). For these reasons, the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10966 Document: 00513858180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2017