### 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 i n 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 02/22/2016No. 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 jud icial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). W e evaluate Patino’s claim by “ viewing [it] against the entire record .” United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1, 1 6 (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 F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Patino does n ot 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 materialit y requirement of his claim that the loss of his own testimony prejudiced his case. See Young , 470 U.S. at 1 6; Valenzuela

- Bernal , 458 U.S. at 867

- 68, 873

- 74. Also, whether continued violations of the in limine order could have been effectively controlled b y a course of repeated Government objections and Case: 15-50532 Document: 00513390370 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2016No. 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 1 6; Ellis , 564 F.3d at 377

- 78

. G iven 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