United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20532 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Juan Manuel Sanchez-Leija, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:22-CR-192-1 

______________________________ 

Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Juan Manuel Sanchez-Leija contests the within-Guidelines 57-

months’ sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal 

reentry by a previously deported alien after an aggravated felony offense, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (prohibiting reentry), (b)(2) (outlining 

penalty). In maintaining the district court erred in assessing three criminal-

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 1, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20532 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
No. 23-20532 

2 

history points for his state conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, 

he asserts his commission of that offense was to avoid detection in the United 

States and was, therefore, relevant conduct, rather than a separate offense. 

See Guideline § 4A1.2(a)(1) (defining “prior sentence” to include sentences 

based on “conduct not part of the instant offense”) & cmt. n.1 (“Conduct 

that is part of the instant offense means conduct that is relevant conduct to 

the instant offense under the provisions of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).”); 

Guideline § 1B1.3 (outlining “Relevant Conduct”). As a result, he also 

asserts that, because the failure-to-register offense did not qualify for 

criminal-history points, the court also erred in enhancing his offense level. 

See Guideline § 2L1.2(b) (outlining enhancements) & cmt. n.3 (outlining 

appropriate criminal-history points). 

Sanchez asserts he preserved these issues for our review. He stated 

both before and at sentencing, however, that he had no objections to the 

presentence investigation report. In seeking a leniency in sentencing, he 

asserted that his criminal-history category was overrepresented because his 

state offense of failing to register was due in part to his trying to avoid 

detection for being back in the country illegally. This assertion fell short of 

raising in district court the Guideline calculation issues that he now raises on 

appeal, and it did not put the Government or the court on notice of these 

issues. See United States v. Rodriguez-Leos, 953 F.3d 320, 324–25 (5th Cir. 

2020) (“The objection must be sufficiently specific to alert the district court 

to the nature of the alleged error and to provide an opportunity for 

correction.” (citation omitted)); United States v. Hearns, 845 F.3d 641, 648 

(5th Cir. 2017) (outlining adequacy of objection for preservation). 

Accordingly, because Sanchez did not raise these issues in district 

court, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 

537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Sanchez must show a forfeited 

plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable 

Case: 23-20532 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
No. 23-20532 

3 

dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct 

the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously 

affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. 

Id. (citation omitted). 

In United States v. Vargas-Garcia, our court rejected contentions 

substantially similar to those advanced by Sanchez. 434 F.3d 345, 349–50 

(5th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he concealed and extended nature of this offense cannot 

shield multiple and severable instances of unlawful conduct from their 

appropriate consequences at sentencing”. (citation omitted)); see also United 

States v. Vega-Ruiz, 775 F. App’x 148, 151–53 (5th Cir. 2019) (rejecting 

similar contention on plain-error review). He also fails to point to 

“controlling circuit or Supreme Court precedent [that] has reached the issue 

in question”. United States v. Scott, 821 F.3d 562, 570–71 (5th Cir. 2016) 

(citation omitted). Accordingly, on plain-error review, he fails to show the 

requisite clear-or-obvious error in the district court’s calculation of his 

Guidelines sentencing range. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-20532 Document: 47-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/01/2024