### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 50738 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. BOGAR GALINDO

- GARCIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CR

- 121

- 1

Before KING, OWEN , and HIGGINSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bogar Galindo

- Garcia pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Based upon a 2001 conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, which resulted in a 24

- month term of imprisonment, Galindo

- Garcia was assessed a 16

- level upwar d adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). At sentencing, Galindo

- Garcia asked the district court to impose a sentence below the guidelines range of 41 to 51 months. The district court rejected the request, c iting Galindo

- Garcia’s

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 June 7, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-50738 Document: 00513537897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2016No. 15

- 50738

2 drug trafficking conviction, and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 41 months. Galindo

- Garcia now argues that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. Because Galindo

- Garcia did not object to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence in district co urt, we review for plain error only. United States v. Peltier , 505 F.3d 389, 391

- 92 (5th Cir. 2007). To establish plain error, Galindo

- Garcia must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. Unite d States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id

. Galindo

- Garcia fails to establi sh that the sentence imposed is plainly erroneous. First, Galindo

- Garcia cites no authority to support his argument that the district court should have imposed a lower sentence in the instant case because the sentence for his drug trafficking case would h ave been lower ed under Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The absence of persuasive authority dooms this argument on plain error review. See United States v. Trejo , 610 F.3d 308, 319 (5th Cir. 2010). Second, this court has rejected variants of his remaining arguments in prior decisions. United States v. Gomez

- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565

- 66 (5th Cir. 2008) (concluding that the district court did not impose a substantivel y unreasonable sentence where it considered but rejected, inter alia, defendant’s argument that he illegally entered the United States to visit his ailing father); United States v. Willingham , 497 F.3d 541, 544

- 45 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that statistics

s howing nationwide disparities in sentences imposed for the same offense, without more , provide no basis for imposing a non

- guidelines sentence ). AFFIRMED. Case: 15-50738 Document: 00513537897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2016