IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41308

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TOMAS PABLO-GONZALEZ, also known as Tomas Pablo Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

Consoldiated with

No. 08-41318

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TOMAS PABLO-GONZALEZ, also known as Juan Garcia-Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-603-ALL

USDC No. 1:08-CR-1174-ALL

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 7, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-41308 c/w

No. 08-41318

 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

2

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In these consolidated appeals, Tomas Pablo-Gonzalez challenges (1) the

sentence imposed following his conviction for being an alien unlawfully found in

the United States after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and (2) the sentence

imposed following the revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised

release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Pablo-Gonzalez argues that the district court

committed significant procedural error with respect to both sentences by

imposing within-guidelines sentences without adequate explanation or

consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Pablo-Gonzalez concedes that

he did not raise these arguments in the district court with respect to either

sentence, but he seeks to preserve for review his contention that review should

not be limited to plain error.

Because Pablo-Gonzalez did not raise these arguments in the district court

with respect to either sentence, we review for plain error. See United States v.

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed

(June 24, 2009) (No. 08-11099). To show plain error, Pablo-Gonzalez must show

an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See

United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct.

962 (2009). This court will correct such an error only if it seriously affects the

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

Pablo-Gonzalez does not explain how either sentence might have differed

had the district court provided a more thorough explanation for its sentencing

choices. Even if Pablo-Gonzalez has identified clear or obvious errors with

respect to the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of reasons for the
No. 08-41308 c/w

No. 08-41318

3

sentences imposed, Pablo-Gonzalez cannot show that the errors affected his

substantial rights because nothing in the record suggests that his sentences

would have been different had the court provided more extensive reasons for the

sentences imposed. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65. He argues

that his substantial rights were affected because the district court’s failure to

explain why it rejected his nonfrivolous arguments for lesser sentences

“rendered it impossible for the court of appeals to conduct any meaningful

substantive reasonableness review.” This argument is foreclosed with respect

to within-guidelines sentences. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 365.

Because Pablo-Gonzalez has not shown that the errors, if any, affected his

substantial rights, he has not shown plain error. See id. at 364-65; Baker, 538

F.3d at 332. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.