### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-51200 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. Y S AU RO REYES-ORTIZ, also known as Jorge R odas Cruz, also known as Felisiano Garcia Monpufur, also known as F elisiano Garcia M o n t ufur, also known as Isauro Reyes, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CR-230-1

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ysauro Reyes-Ortiz (Reyes) appeals the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The district court ordered the revocation sentence, which was within the Guidelines and b elow the statutory maximum term of i mprisonment, t o run consecutively to the 24-month s entence imposed in Reyes’s new illegal reentry c ase. R e y es argues that his revocation U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 23, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-51200 Document: 00512352179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2013No. 12-51200

sentence is greater than necessary to further the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a) factors of deterring future criminal conduct and protecting the public. Because Reyes did n ot object to the reasonableness of his revocation

s e n t e n c e in the d istrict c o u rt, review is for plain error. United Sta t e s v . Whitelaw, 580 F

. 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 59-60 (5th Cir. 2 009). To show plain e rror, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious a nd t h a t affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. U

nited States , 556 U.S. 1 29, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion t o correct the e rror but o nly if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Although in imposing a revocation s entence, the district court is directed to consider the relevant factors enumerated in § 3553(a), i ncluding the nonbinding policy statements found i n Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines,

see United States v. Mathena , 23 F.3d 87, 90-93 (5th Cir. 1994), the district court has “substantial latitude i n devising revocation sentences for d e f e n d a n ts who violate the terms of supervised release.” United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th C ir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citati o n o m itt ed). Further, the imposition of a consecutive revocation sentence is both auth o rized by statute and preferred under the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584; U .S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s., & comment. (n.4). Reyes’s disagreement with the propriety of the consecutivelyimposed sentence is insufficient to show that the district court plainly erred in imposing the sentence or to overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to his within-guidelines revocation sentence. See Puckett, 5 56 U.S. at 135; United States v . Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010 ) ; United States v. Lopez-Velasquez , 526 F.3d 8 04, 809 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that the presumption of reasonableness afforded to w ithin- g u i delines sentences also applies to within-guidelines revocation sentences). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-51200 Document: 00512352179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2013