IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50189

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RENE ALEXANDER GOMEZ-FUENTES, also known as Rene GomezFuentes, also known as Rene Alexander, also known as Rene Alexander 

Fuentes, also known as Rene Lopez, also known as Joe Ramirez, also known 

as Rene Guillem, also known as Alex Fuentes, also known as Ramon Fuentes, 

also known as Rene Ramirez, also known as Ramon Fuentas, also known as 

Alex Fuentas, also known as Rene Gomez, also known as Alexander Reno, also 

known as Rene Fuentes-Gomez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-427-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Alexander Gomez-Fuentes was convicted of illegal reentry into the 

United States, and the district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 

* 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

January 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50189 Document: 00512905392 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2015
No. 14-50189

60 months in prison as well as a three-year term of supervised release. In this 

appeal, Gomez-Fuentes argues that the district court plainly erred by relying 

on the assault arrest immediately preceding the instant conviction to calculate 

his sentence because this arrest did not result in a conviction. He also contends 

that a sentence within the guidelines range would have provided just 

punishment and that the district court did not give adequate reasons for its 

choice of sentence. These arguments are unavailing.

Because Gomez-Fuentes did not object to his sentence, his arguments 

are reviewed for plain error only. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 

564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish reversible plain error, an 

appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects 

his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If 

he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but 

will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation 

of judicial proceedings. Id.

The record refutes Gomez-Fuentes’s contention that the district court 

committed reversible plain error by using the 2013 arrest as the basis for its 

decision to impose a nonguidelines sentence. The information referenced by 

the PSR was not taken from a bare arrest record. Rather, the PSR contained 

specific information concerning this arrest, and Gomez-Fuentes did not even 

attempt to rebut this information. Consequently, the district court did not err 

by using it. See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 229-31 & n.1 (5th Cir. 

2012); United States v. Nava, 624 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2010). Further, while 

the district court did mention the 2013 arrest, it did not focus on this or any 

other single incident when fashioning an appropriate sentence. Its extensive 

written and oral remarks evidence the district court’s belief that GomezFuentes’s pattern of repeatedly committing serious offenses, and his failure to 

2

 Case: 14-50189 Document: 00512905392 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2015
No. 14-50189

be deterred by the sentence imposed for his prior illegal reentry offense, 

warranted the sentence imposed. Gomez-Fuentes has not shown plain error 

with respect to the district court’s use of his 2013 arrest to fashion his sentence.

Likewise unavailing is Gomez-Fuentes’s argument that the district court 

did not give adequate reasons to explain its choice of sentence. Generally, 

“[t]he sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court 

that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for 

exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 

U.S. 338, 356 (2007).

That standard is met, as the record clearly shows that the district court 

imposed the sentence it found most apt in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors. Finally, the fact that Gomez-Fuentes thinks his sentence should have 

been lower does not mean that it is unreasonable. Cf. Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (holding that a sentence is not unreasonable simply 

because the appellate court would have chosen a different sentence). The 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-50189 Document: 00512905392 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/16/2015