IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-51200

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

YSAURO REYES-ORTIZ, also known as Jorge Rodas Cruz, also known as

Felisiano Garcia Monpufur, also known as Felisiano Garcia Montufur, 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 below the statutory

maximum term of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 24-month sentence

imposed in Reyes’s new illegal reentry case. Reyes argues that his revocation

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 23, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

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

sentence is greater than necessary to further the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors of deterring future criminal conduct and protecting the public. 

Because Reyes did not object to the reasonableness of his revocation

sentence in the district court, review is for plain error. United States v.

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, he 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). If he makes such a

showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects

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

Although in imposing a revocation sentence, the district court is directed

to consider the relevant factors enumerated in § 3553(a), including the nonbinding policy statements found in 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 in devising revocation sentences for defendants who

violate the terms of supervised release.” United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841,

843 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, the

imposition of a consecutive revocation sentence is both authorized 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, 556 U.S. at

135; United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v.

Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that the

presumption of reasonableness afforded to within-guidelines 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