IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40423

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GALDINO SIGALA GARCIA, also known as Pelon,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-123-4

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Galdino Sigala Garcia appeals his conviction and 135-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine.

Sigala Garcia argues that there was not a sufficient factual basis for his guilty

plea or to support the quantity of cocaine for which he was held accountable at

sentencing. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 8, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-40423 Document: 00512168437 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2013
No. 12-40423

Because Sigala Garcia did not object in the district court to the sufficiency

of the factual basis for his plea, review is for plain error. See United States v.

Oliver, 630 F.3d 397, 415 (5th Cir. 2011). In determining whether there has

been plain error, the court may consider the entire record in assessing whether

there is an adequate factual basis for a guilty plea, including the presentence

report (PSR). Id. at 412; United States v. Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d 466, 475 (5th

Cir. 2008). The district court was required to determine that as a matter of law,

the record reflected Sigala Garcia’s participation in the drug-trafficking

conspiracy that involved as a whole more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. See

United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 722-23 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v.

Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc). 

During the rearraignment, the district court ascertained Sigala Garcia’s

acknowledgment that he entered into an agreement with co-conspirator Victor

Lopez to assist him in obtaining 10 kilograms of cocaine for distribution; that he

obtained a cocaine source; that he and the other men developed a plan to have

the cocaine delivered to the buyer, who was in fact the undercover agent; and

that Sigala Garcia was to receive $1500 for his part in the criminal activity. His

admissions were supported by the testimony of the undercover agent and the

findings in the PSR. A review of the record as a whole shows that there was

sufficient factual evidence presented to support the guilty plea and, thus, Sigala

Garcia failed to show error, plain or otherwise, with respect to the validity of his

guilty plea. Citing to the reasons he raised in the district court in seeking a

downward variance from the sentencing guideline range, Sigala Garcia argues

that his 135-month sentence of imprisonment is greater than necessary to

achieve the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and is thus unreasonable. Sigala

Garcia contends that the district court failed to consider the mitigating factor

that his role in the offense had little relationship to the cocaine recovered on

June 5, 2010. He also argues that the district court should have avoided

2

 Case: 12-40423 Document: 00512168437 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2013
No. 12-40423

unwarranted disparities at sentencing, pointing out that his codefendant,

Cardona-Palacios, received a 35-month sentence of imprisonment. 

Although Sigala Garcia failed to object to the reasonableness of his

sentence below, his reliance on the same arguments that he presented to the

district court to support his request for a downward variance allows the court to

find that he has preserved the reasonableness issue for appeal and to apply the

abuse of discretion standard of review. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523

F.3d 554, 565 n.6 (5th Cir. 2008). A sentence imposed within a properly

calculated guidelines range is accorded a presumption of reasonableness and is

rebutted only if the district court fails to consider a significant factor, gives

weight to an irrelevant factor, or clearly errs in balancing the sentencing factors. 

United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v.

Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).

Sigala Garcia’s argument that there was no evidence linking him to the

drug sale was rebutted by his own admissions, the information in the PSR, and

the testimony of the undercover agent at the sentencing hearing. Insofar as he

argues that there was an unwarranted disparity in sentencing, he did not rebut

the evidence that his codefendants immediately cooperated with the authorities

and received the benefit of the safety valve provision while he pleaded guilty on

the day his trial was scheduled and was precluded from the application of the

safety valve based on his prior convictions. Sigala Garcia has not rebutted the

presumption of reasonableness afforded his guideline sentence. See Cooks, 589

F.3d at 186. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the

guidelines sentence.

Sigala Garcia’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 12-40423 Document: 00512168437 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2013