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

No. 17

- 40522

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MARTIN TERAN

- CONTRERAS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:17

- CR

- 33

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Martin Teran

- Contreras pleaded guilty to being found in the United States after being removed previously, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). At sentencing, the district court imposed an upward departure based on substantial underrepresentation of Teran

- Contr eras’s criminal history. In giving its reasons for the departure, the district court referred to Teran

Contreras’s serious criminal history, including an offense originally charged as robbery with a deadly weapon. On appeal , Teran

- Contreras contends that the

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 14, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40522 Document: 00514599096 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2018No. 17

- 40522

2 district court violated his due process rights by relying on allegations taken from the robbery indictment, given that he ultimately pleaded guilty to second

degree robbery, which does not have as an element the use of a deadly weapon.

“ Generally, t his C ourt reviews the district court’ s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo .” United States v. Nesmith , 866 F.3d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Garcia

- Perez , 77 9 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2015)). However, if an objection was not sufficiently raised in the district court, this court reviews for plain error only

. See United States v. Hernandez , 690 F.3d 613, 620 (5th Cir. 2012). “ The purpose of requiring defendants to make timely objections to the PSR and actual sentence is ‘ founded upon considerations of fairness to the court and to the parties and of the public interest in bringing litigation to an end after fair opportunity has been afforded to prese nt all issues of law and fact.’” United States v. Ocana , 204 F.3d 585, 589 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Ruiz , 43 F.3d 985 , 988 (5th Cir. 1995) ). Thus, “[a] party must raise a claim of error with the district court in such a manner so that the district court may correct itself and thus, obviate the need for our revi ew. ” United States v. Bullard , 13 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir. 1994). Teran

- Contreras contends that he preserved the argument urged on appeal because: (1) he objected in writing that “ no reliable information indicates that the criminal history category fails t o adequately reflect the seriousness of [his] past criminal conduct or the likelihood t hat he will commit other crimes” ; (2) counsel objected at sentencing that the district court w as relying on “incidents” that were “just allegations”; and (3) “Teran

- Cont reras himself obje cted that there was no weapon.” However, Teran

- Contreras’s written objection was too vague to give the trial court a reasonable opportunity to address the alleged error. See, e.g. , United States v. Chavez

- Hernandez , 671 Case: 17-40522 Document: 00514599096 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2018No. 17

- 40522

3 F.3d 494 , 497

- 98 (5th Cir. 2012). Counsel’s objection at sentencing did not fairly encompass the argument made on appeal and thus was not clearly sufficient to give the district court the opportunity to “ correct itself .” Bullard , 1 3 F.3d at 156. Finally, though Teran

- C ontreras, who was represented by counsel, relies on statements that he himself made at the sentencing hearing, he does not explain why this court should consider these pro se statements an objection. See United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256 , 259 (5th C ir. 2009) ( finding that defendant with counsel did not preserve argument for appeal where he “ challenged the district court ’ s ruling

. . . only in [a] pro se motion he filed following his revocation hearin g”). To the extent he relies on a permissive hybri d

- representation theory, Teran

- Contreras has failed to sufficiently brief this argument. See SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc. , 854 F.3d 765, 784 (5th Cir. 2017) (inadequately b riefed arguments are forfeited). Accordingly, we find that Teran

- Contreras did not preserve his due process argument

. See Nesmith , 866 F.3d at 679; Chavez

- Hernandez , 671 F.3d at 497. Consequently , we review his claim for plain error. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show plain error, Tera n - Contreras must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affected his substantial rights. See id . If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id . (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). E ven if we were to assume the district court committed a clear or obvious

error by relying on allegations from an indictment , Teran

- Contreras would not b e entitled to relief because he cannot demonstrate that any error affected his substantial rights. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. The district court’s decision to upwardly depart was based primarily on Teran

- Contreras’s significant Case: 17-40522 Document: 00514599096 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/14/2018No. 17

- 40522

4 history of unadjudicate d charges and arrests for violent offenses. See, e.g. , United States v. Fuentes , 775 F.3d 213, 219

- 20 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the facts underlying prior arrest s )

. Moreover, the district court’s stated concern with respect to the robbery offense was its violent nature

. Teran

- Contreras

was ultimately convicted of second

- degree robbery , which is committed by, i n the course of committing theft , “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly

caus [ing] bodily injury to another; or . . . intentionally or knowing ly threaten[ing] or plac[ing] another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.” T EX

. P ENAL C ODE § 29 .02(a). For purposes of the district court’s inquiry, t he distinction between the charged offense and the offense of conviction is of little significan ce , as second

- degree robbery is also a serious and violent crime

. Thus, Teran

- Contreras cannot demonstrate that, absent error, there is a substantial likelihood that he would hav e received a different sentence. S ee Molina

- Martinez v. United States , 136 S . Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016)

. He has therefore failed to show reversible plain error

. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-40522 Document: 00514599096 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/14/2018