IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50934 

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADELIO RIVERA-MIRANDA,

Defendant-Appellant

________________

Cons w/ 14-50939

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADELIO RIBERA-MIRANDA, also known as Adelio Rivera, also known as 

Adelio Miranda-Rivera, also known as Adelio Rivera-Miranda,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-1649-1

USDC No. 2:14-CR-713-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-50934 Document: 00513001363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2015
No. 14-50934 c/w No. 14-50939

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation, the district 

court sentenced Adelio Rivera-Miranda (Rivera) to a 37-month term of 

imprisonment. The district court also revoked a term of supervised release 

that had been imposed following Rivera’s convictions in the District of 

Nebraska for bank fraud and illegal reentry and imposed a consecutive 12-

month revocation sentence. Although he filed notices of appeal in both cases, 

Rivera’s brief in these consolidated appeals challenges only the revocation 

sentence. He has therefore waived any challenge to his illegal reentry 

conviction and the associated sentence. See United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 

608, 611 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000). 

We review Rivera’s revocation sentence under the “plainly 

unreasonable” standard. See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Although Rivera acknowledges this court’s holding in Miller, he 

argues that the “plainly unreasonable” standard used by this court is incorrect 

because it is based on a flawed interpretation of United States v. Booker, 543 

U.S. 220 (2005). Rivera contends that the reasonableness standard established 

in Booker should be applied in the review of all criminal sentences, including 

revocation sentences. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Miller, 

but he raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review. 

Rivera’s consecutive 12-month revocation sentence falls within the 

guidelines range, and it is consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy 

regarding consecutive sentences. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s.; § 7B1.4, p.s. The 

* 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

 

 Case: 14-50934 Document: 00513001363 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2015
No. 14-50934 c/w No. 14-50939

sentence was thus entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United 

States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008); United States 

v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 471 (5th Cir. 2006). To rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness, Rivera must show that the district court failed to account for 

a sentencing factor that should have been accorded substantial weight, gave 

substantial weight to an “irrelevant or improper factor,” or made “a clear error 

of judgment in balancing [the] sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 

F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

As the district court noted, Rivera has a significant criminal history, 

which prompted the district court to express a concern for protecting the public 

and providing deterrence. Rivera’s arguments regarding the overstated 

seriousness of the illegal reentry offense and his personal circumstances 

amount to a mere disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the

appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors, and such is insufficient to 

overcome the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alvardo, 

691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012). 

In view of the foregoing, the judgments of the district court are

AFFIRMED. 

3

 Case: 14-50934 Document: 00513001363 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/10/2015