IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40069

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HOMERO SANCHEZ-ARRIAGA, also known as Gustavo Castillo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-932-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Homero Sanchez-Arriaga appeals the 120-month sentence imposed for

his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues, for the 

first time on appeal, that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because 

the district court failed to address his request for a variance and consider his 

cooperation as a mitigating factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that the 

sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court effectively 

* 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

December 22, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40069 Document: 00512878709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2014
No. 14-40069

denied him any credit for acceptance of responsibility by sentencing him to the 

statutory maximum sentence.

We review his arguments for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show plain error, Sanchez-Arriaga must show 

that the error was clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights. See id. If 

he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only 

if it “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 

U.S. 725, 736 (1993)).

There is no indication that the district court thought it lacked the 

authority to vary downward to account for Sanchez-Arriaga’s cooperation. See

United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 599, 601 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, there 

is no plain error in this regard. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Because the 

sentence imposed was within the guidelines range, little explanation of the 

sentence was required, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007), 

and we will infer that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, see 

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, even if 

the district court plainly erred, Sanchez-Arriaga has not shown that his 

substantial rights were affected. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 

564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009).

We have rejected the argument that a district court imposes a 

substantively unreasonable sentence by sentencing a defendant to the 

statutory maximum sentence in this circumstance. See United States v. Coil, 

280 F. App’x 358, 361-62 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, there is no clear or obvious 

error. See United States v. Guerrero-Robledo, 565 F.3d 940, 946 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Moreover, Sanchez-Arriaga’s arguments against the imposition of the 

statutory maximum sentence do not show a clear error of judgment on the 

2

 Case: 14-40069 Document: 00512878709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2014
No. 14-40069

district court’s part in balancing the § 3553(a) factors; instead, they constitute 

a mere disagreement with the weighing of those factors. See United States v. 

Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, he has failed to rebut 

the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his within-guidelines 

sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 

2008). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-40069 Document: 00512878709 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/22/2014