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 upward 

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, citing Galindo-Garcia’s 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50738 Document: 00513537897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2016
No. 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 court, 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. United 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 establish 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 have been lowered

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 substantively 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 

showing 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