P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40725 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. M ARGARI TO B ENI TE Z - S ALAZ AR D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 04- C R - 419- 4 B e fo r e J O N E S , C h ie f J u d g e , a n dJ O L LYa n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * M argari t o B en i t ez- S al azar ( B en i t ez) ap p eal s th e f ou r- m on t h sentence i m posedf

ol l ow i n g t h e revocat ion o f a previ ou sly i m posedt erm of sup ervi sed rel ea se . H e a rgues that by i m posi n g t h i s s en t en ce t o run consecutivel y t o a separate t erm of

i m pri sonm en t , t h e di st ri ctcou rt im p osed a sentence greater th a n n e c e s s a r yto m e e t t h e g o a ls o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40725

2 B e c a u s e B e n ite z d idn o t o b j e c to n t h is b a s is b e lo w , w e re v ie w fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pel t i er , 5 0 5 F .3d3 8 9 , 3 9 1 -9 2 ( 5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), ce rt. d enie d , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 9 5 9 (2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 484 F. 3d 783, 7 9 2 ( 5 th C i r. 200 7) . To establ i sh p l ai n err or, B en i t ez m u st show ( 1) t h at th ere w as err or, (2 ) th a t t h e e r r o rw a s cle a ro ro b v io u s , a n d ( 3 ) t h a t t h e e r r o ra ffe c te dh is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . Se eUni t e d St at e sv . O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 1 -3 7 (19 9 3 ). E ve n if B en i tez estab l i sh es th ose factors, w e w i l l n ot ex ercise ou r d i scre ti on to corr ectt h e f

orf ei t ed errorun l ess i tser i ou sly af fect s th e fai rness, i n t egri t y, or p u b licre p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . S ee id . at736. Th e di st r i c tc our thad th e a u thor i t y, af t erc ons i der at i on o f

t he § 3553( a) fac t o r s , t o o r de rBenit e z ’ s revoc at i o n s e nt e nc e t o r un c o ns e c ut ive l y t o t he s e n te n c e im p o s e dfo rh is ille g a l r e e n tr yo ffe n s e . S ee1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 4 (a ), (b ); see als o Un i t ed S t ate s v. G on zalez , 250 F . 3d923 , 925 - 29 (5t h C i r. 200 1) . Th e pol i cy st atem en t s i n the S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es al so r ecom m en d the i m posi t i on of c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s . S eeU . S . Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es M an u al§ 7B 1. 3(f ) , p. s. I n a ddit i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg av e re as o ns fo rit s s e nt e nc e c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t he § 355 3( a) fact ors. W e concl u de that B en i t ez ha s fai l ed to est abli sh an y error , pl ai n or ot h erw i se. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.