Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10812/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10812-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Manuel Gallegos-Ortiz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10812

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN MANUEL GALLEGOS-ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-9-1

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

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Manuel Gallegos-Ortiz (Gallegos) appeals the 16-month withinguidelines 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 

explain adequately 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

January 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10812 Document: 00512916064 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2015
No. 14-10812

Because Gallegos did not raise the objection below, review is for plain 

error only. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir. 2013); see 

also United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001). To establish 

plain error, Gallegos 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 Gallegos’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 Gallegos has not shown that his substantial rights were affected. See

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

v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent that 

Gallegos argues that Whitelaw and Mondragon-Santiago were 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.

2

Case: 14-10812 Document: 00512916064 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2015