IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50218 

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUSTAVO CALDERON-GARCIA, also known as Efren Chavez Quiroz,

Defendant-Appellant

Consolidated with 09-50230

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUSTAVO CALDERON-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC Nos. 3:07-CR-800-1, 3:08-CR-2834-1

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-50218 c/w 09-50239

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

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Gustavo Calderon-Garcia pleaded guilty to

attempting to reenter the United States unlawfully after removal, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced him to 21 months of

imprisonment for that offense. Calderon-Garcia also pleaded true to an

allegation that he violated his supervised release term imposed in connection

with a previous illegal reentry conviction. The district court revoked his

supervised release and sentenced him to a 14-month term of imprisonment, to

run consecutively to the 21-month term.

Calderon-Garcia asserts that imposing his revocation sentence to run

consecutively to his sentence for his attempted illegal-reentry offense resulted

in an unreasonable sentence. He argues that his 14-month consecutive sentence

was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing set out in 18

U.S.C. § 3553. He contends that a lesser sentence would have been sufficient

punishment and would have more accurately reflected the significance of his

violation of the court’s trust, notifying that he had already been punished at the

top of the guideline range for his reentry offense. He argues that because the

sentence was greater than necessary, it was unreasonable and should be vacated

because the sentence overstates the seriousness of his violation. He also argues

that the sentence failed to reflect his personal circumstances regarding his

desire to be with his family and his sick son.

Calderon-Garcia did not object to the unreasonableness of the imposition

of a consecutive sentence in the district court, so we review the district court’s

actions for plain error only. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1428-

29 (2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), cert.

denied, 128 S. Ct. 2959 (2008). To show plain error, the appellant must show an
No. 09-50218 c/w 09-50239

3

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

States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 962

(2009). If the appellant makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct

the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

The record shows that the district court considered the advisory guidelines

ranges for each sentence. Although the district court did not explicitly state that

it was considering the § 3553 factors, the sentencing transcript reflects that the

district court considered Calderon-Garcia’s extensive criminal history and the

fact that prior lenient sentences had not deterred him. The record also indicates

that the district court considered Calderon-Garcia’s history and characteristics

and the need for the sentence to act as a deterrent, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(2)(B). The foregoing analysis confirms that the district court considered

the factors set forth in § 3553(a) when exercising its discretion to impose

consecutive sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and (b); United States v.

Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 929-30 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court’s decision to

impose consecutive sentences accords with the recommendation set forth in the

Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (p.s.); § 7B1.3 comt. n.4. The district court

did not plainly err.

AFFIRMED.