IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50532

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

MAURICIO ANTONIO PATINO-MANCIA, also known as Maurice Mancia, 

also known as Mauricio Mancia, also known as Mauricio Antonio Mancia, also 

known as Mauricio Patino Mancia,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-396

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mauricio Antonio Patino-Mancia (Patino) appeals his conviction for 

illegally reentering the United States in July 2013. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We 

affirm.

Patino asserts that the district court committed reversible plain error by 

denying his constitutional right to testify, thus depriving him of a fair trial. To 

 

* 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 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50532 Document: 00513390370 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
No. 15-50532

2

prevail on plain error review, Patino must show (1) a forfeited error (2) that is 

clear or obvious and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). A claim “subject to reasonable dispute” cannot 

constitute plain error. Id.; see United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377-78 (5th 

Cir. 2009). Ordinarily, an error affects substantial rights if “it affect[s] the 

outcome of the district court proceedings.” Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). If Patino makes the required showing, 

we may exercise our discretion “to remedy the error . . . if the error seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We evaluate Patino’s claim 

by “viewing [it] against the entire record.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 

16 (1985).

Patino offers a conclusory contention that the district court prejudiced 

the defense by precluding testimony about his prior removal. Arguments must 

be briefed adequately. United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 

2006); see FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Patino does not specify what his 

testimony about his removal proceedings—or more testimony about his 

mother’s cancer or his unemployment—would have been, much less that it 

would have been admissible or would have swayed the jury to disbelieve the 

Government’s evidence and acquit him. See United States v. 

Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 873-74 (1982). Indeed, Patino has not even 

shown that a mistaken removal is a defense to an illegal reentry charge. Given 

the record as a whole, Patino does not satisfy the materiality requirement of 

his claim that the loss of his own testimony prejudiced his case. See Young, 

470 U.S. at 16; Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. at 867-68, 873-74.

Also, whether continued violations of the in limine order could have been 

effectively controlled by a course of repeated Government objections and 

 Case: 15-50532 Document: 00513390370 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
No. 15-50532

3

district court admonishments to the jury, as Patino suggests, is a question that 

is at least subject to reasonable dispute. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Young, 

470 U.S. at 16; Ellis, 564 F.3d at 377-78. Given that the question whether the 

district court acted arbitrarily is reasonably debatable, there can be no plain 

error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410 (1988); 

Ellis, 564 F.3d at 377-78.

Because he does not satisfy the materiality requirement to warrant a 

finding of error, Patino additionally cannot show that his substantial rights 

were affected. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Consequently, he does not satisfy 

the third prong of the plain error standard. See id. Patino therefore fails to 

show reversible plain error. See id.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50532 Document: 00513390370 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2016