Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11156/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Rivera-Nevarez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11156

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALBERTO RIVERA-NEVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-57-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alberto Rivera-Nevarez appeals the 27-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 argument.

 

* 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

June 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-11156 Document: 00513096933 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2015
No. 14-11156

2

Because Rivera-Nevarez 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, Rivera-Nevarez 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 Rivera-Nevarez’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 Rivera-Nevarez 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. To the extent that Rivera-Nevarez

argues that Whitelaw was wrongly decided, the argument is unavailing. See 

United States v. Walker, 302 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2002).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-11156 Document: 00513096933 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2015