United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10106 

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Andrew P. Arellano, 

Defendant—Appellant, 

consolidated with

_____________

No. 23-10107 

_____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Andrew Perez Arellano, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 7, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10106 Document: 00516959240 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
2

______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC Nos. 3:20-CR-627-1, 3:20-CR-565-1

______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Andrew Perez Arellano pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a 

controlled substance. The district court sentenced him to 240 months in 

prison. A revocation hearing immediately followed. While on supervised 

release, Arellano violated the conditions of his release multiple times, and

committed another federal offense that involved an extensive drug 

conspiracy and large quantities of drugs. Because of this conduct, the 

Government argued for the statutory-maximum revocation sentence and for 

it to be run consecutively to his sentence for conspiracy to distribute a 

controlled substance. The district court agreed, stating, “I think [the 

Government] makes a good point about the type of offense and how – what 

an upper level he was in this offense So I’m going to run the sentence 

consecutively.” It then revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 

a consecutive term of 24 months. 

Arellano challenges the revocation sentence,1 asserting that the 

district court improperly considered factors outlined in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(2)(A). He bases this argument on the statement above, as well as

statements made during the sentencing related to Arellano’s guilty plea for 

conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. 

_____________________

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

1 Because Arellano makes no argument pertaining to his 240-month sentence, he 

has abandoned any claim relating to that sentence. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 

251, 254–55 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Case: 23-10106 Document: 00516959240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
23-10106

c/w No. 23-10107

3

Because Arellano did not object to the revocation sentence before the 

district court, review is for plain error. Arellano must show that: “(1) the 

district court erred, (2) the error was clear or obvious, (3) the error affected 

his substantial rights, and (4) this court should exercise its discretion to 

correct the error because the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” In re Deepwater Horizon, 824 F.3d 

571, 583 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Puckett v. U.S., 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)).

Arellano fails to make this showing. The district court’s comments 

do not show that it considered retribution in imposing the sentence 

consecutively. See U.S. v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining 

that district courts may not consider retribution for revocation sentences). 

However, district courts may consider the defendant’s history and 

characteristics, the need to deter the defendant from future criminal activity, 

and the need to protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (citing 18 U.S.C.

3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), & (a)(2)(C)). The district court’s comments were 

made in response to the Government’s argument about Arellano’s escalating 

conduct while on supervised release, and do not reference punishment or 

retribution. Rather, they accord with the permitted considerations. Thus, 

Arellano fails to demonstrate plain error. In re Deepwater Horizon, 824 at 583. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-10106 Document: 00516959240 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/07/2023