IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50812

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ANTONIO CORONADO-RODRIGUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Consolidated with

No. 08-50863

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ANTONIO CORONADO-RODRIGUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-221-ALL

USDC No. 1:08-CR-115-ALL

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 31, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50812

c/w No. 08-50863

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

Before PRADO, ELROD and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In these consolidated appeals, Juan Antonio Coronado-Rodriguez

(Coronado) challenges the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction

for being unlawfully present in the United States following removal and the

sentence imposed following the revocation of a previously imposed term of

supervised release. Coronado argues that his 41-month sentence for being

unlawfully present in the United States following removal was unreasonable.

The Government argues that Coronado’s appeal from his sentence for being

unlawfully present in the United States following removal should be dismissed

because Coronado did not file a timely notice of appeal. Coronado does not

address the issue of the timeliness of his notice of appeal.

Coronado’s notice of appeal in his new criminal case was filed after the

expiration of the time for filing a timely notice of appeal and the time during

which the district court could have extended the time for filing a notice of appeal.

See FED.R.APP.P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (b)(4). Accordingly, we must dismiss Coronado’s

appeal from his sentence for being unlawfully present in the United States as

untimely filed. See Burnley v. City of San Antonio, 470 F.3d 189, 192 n.1 (5th

Cir. 2006). 

Coronado argues that the 24-month consecutive sentence imposed upon

the revocation of his supervised release was unreasonable and plainly

unreasonable because the sentence was supposed to be a penalty for his breach

of trust for violating the terms of his supervised release, not additional

punishment for his new offense. He contends that a 12-month sentence would
No. 08-50812

c/w No. 08-50863

3

have been sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the sentencing

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Because Coronado did not object to the sentence in the district court, we

review for plain error only. See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th

Cir. 2007). To show plain error, Coronado must show a forfeited error that is

clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United

States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the

discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

While the 24-month sentence exceeded the advisory guidelines range as

calculated by the district court, the sentence did not exceed the statutory

maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Furthermore, Coronado’s supervised

release violation appears to have been a Grade B violation, making the correct

guidelines sentence range 21-24 months of imprisonment. Given Coronado’s

extensive criminal history, Coronado has not shown that the sentence

constituted plain error. See Jones, 484 F.3d at 792-93; cf. United States v.

Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491-92 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the sentence imposed

upon the revocation of Coronado’s supervised release is affirmed.

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.