IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41359

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL GONZALEZ-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No.5:10-CR-2468-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Daniel Gonzalez-Perez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon the

revocation of his supervised release. Relying on United States v. Miller, 634

F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011), he contends that the district court procedurally

erred by considering sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) in

determining his sentence.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 5, 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: 12-41359 Document: 00512332022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2013
No. 12-41359

As Gonzalez-Perez acknowledges, our review is for plain error. See

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Although the

probation officer recommended thatthe district court sentence Gonzalez-Perez

to “a term of incarceration which would reflect the seriousness of his

noncompliant behavior, promote respect for the law and provide just

punishment for the violations,” we do not impute that recommendation to the

district court. See United States v. Culbertson, 712 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir.

2013) (“[t]he district court’s words are the best evidence of why it did what it

did.”).

The district court did not mention the need for punishment but twice

noted Gonzalez-Perez’s total disregard of federal and state laws. Although this

is arguably similar to the language in Miller, we have not addressed whether

consideration of a defendant’s total disregard for state and federal laws is

tantamount to consideration of the need for the sentence imposed to promote

respect for the law. Accordingly, Gonzalez-Perez has not shown clear or

obvious error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Nor has he shown that the alleged error affected his substantial rights.

The record shows that the district court considered the following in

determining Gonzalez-Perez’s revocation sentence: Gonzalez-Perez’s violations

of four conditions of his supervised release; the recommended guidelines range

of 6 to 12 months, the 24-month statutory maximum range, and the 18-month

sentence Gonzalez-Perez requested in lieu of a 24-month sentence; GonzalezPerez’s previous conviction involving forged payroll checks, and his new offense

of attempting to pass a forged payroll check; Gonzalez-Perez’s age; and the

number of his illegal reentries and his characterization of these as mere

mistakes. This record does not unambiguously indicate that, but for the

district court’s consideration of impermissible sentencing factors, there is a

2

 Case: 12-41359 Document: 00512332022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2013
No. 12-41359

reasonable probability that Gonzalez-Perez would have received a lower

sentence. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643,

647 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 12-41359 Document: 00512332022 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2013