IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10992

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ESPERANZA JAIMES-BENITEZ, also known as Esperanza Jaimes,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-61-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Esperanza Jaimes-Benitez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after having 

been previously deported. At the time of this most recent arrest, she was still 

on supervised release from a prior offense. The district court sentenced her to 

70 months in prison for the illegal reentry, and 8 months in prison for the 

supervised release violation to run consecutively, for a total of 78 months. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10992 Document: 00513438073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2016
No. 14-10992

2

Jaimes-Benitez appeals, arguing that the district court erred in ordering that 

the sentences be served consecutively.

Jaimes-Benitez’s assertions of error are conclusory at best—she does not 

provide any argument or citation to legal authority in support of her 

contentions. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8) (requiring that appellate briefs 

include, among other things, an argument containing the appellant’s

“contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and 

parts of the record on which [she] relies”). An appellant must properly brief an 

issue to preserve it, including relevant facts and a theory on which this court 

should decide the case. “It is not enough to merely mention or allude to a legal 

theory.” United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010). Mere 

recitations of law along with an “abrupt assertion” of error do not present an 

issue for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dall. Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 

748 (5th Cir. 1987). Therefore, Jaimes-Benitez has abandoned any challenge 

to her supervised release violation sentence. See Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 446.

Even if Jaimes-Benitez’s brief was adequate, however, she does not 

establish any error. The district court had the discretion to sentence JaimesBenitez to consecutive terms in prison for her illegal reentry and supervised 

release violations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 

256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009). In fact, the Sentencing Commission recommends 

consecutive sentences in this scenario. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 

7, Pt. B, intro. comment. (2015) (“It is the policy of the Commission that the 

sanction imposed upon revocation is to be served consecutively to any other 

term of imprisonment imposed for any criminal conduct that is the basis of the 

revocation.”). Because Jaimes-Benitez’s sentence both fell within the advisory 

range and was consistent with the Guidelines’ advice regarding consecutive 

sentences, it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. Nothing in the 

 Case: 14-10992 Document: 00513438073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2016
No. 14-10992

3

record suggests that Jaimes-Benitez can rebut this presumption. See United 

States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006). To the extent that JaimesBenitez suggests that she received an illegal sentence in excess of the statutory 

maximum sentence, she is mistaken. She was subject to a statutory maximum 

twenty-four month prison term for her supervised release violation. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion 

for summary affirmance, or to dismiss, or for an extension of time to file a brief 

is DENIED as moot. Jaimes-Benitez’s pro se motion for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED as untimely. Cf. United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 

902-03 (5th Cir. 1998) (denying defendant the opportunity to proceed pro se on 

appeal after defendant’s counsel had filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967)).

 Case: 14-10992 Document: 00513438073 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/24/2016