IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50309

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MOISES ULISES AGUILAR-MARTINEZ, also known as Moises AguilarMartinez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2541-1

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Moises Ulises Aguilar-Martinez appeals the 14-month consecutive

sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. AguilarMartinez argues that the sentence was unreasonable because it constituted an

additional punishment for his new offense, instead of a penalty for his breach of

trust for violating the terms of his supervised release. Aguilar-Martinez also

argues that the sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the objectives of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 17, 2010

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: 10-50309 Document: 00511296494 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2010
No. 10-50309

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors because he is a changed person from his criminal

past and the reason underlying his repeated returns to the United States was

to help his family.

Because Aguilar-Martinez did not object to the reasonableness of his

revocation sentence in the district court, review is for plain error. See United

States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2010). To show plain error,

Aguilar-Martinez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that

affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429

(2009). If Aguilar-Martinez makes such a showing, this court has the discretion

to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

In any event, Aguilar-Martinez has not demonstrated error, plain or

otherwise.

As to Aguilar-Martinez’s argument that the revocation sentence was

unreasonable in light of the sentence imposed for his most recent conviction for

illegal reentry, this court has rejected similar arguments. See United States v.

Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, the transcript

of the revocation hearing reveals that the district court considered the § 3553(a)

factors when imposing Aguilar-Martinez’s revocation sentence. Specifically, the

district court determined that the 14-month sentence was “a fair and reasonable

sentence” necessary to reflect Aguilar-Martinez’s criminal history of returning

to the United States illegally, to promote respect for the law, and to provide

adequate deterrence.

This court has held that “a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness also

applies to a consecutive sentence imposed within the parameters of the advisory

federal guidelines.” United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006).

Further, running sentences for revocation of supervised release consecutively,

rather than concurrently, is preferred under the Guidelines. See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 781.3(f) & cmt. n.4 (2009) (policy statement).

2

Case: 10-50309 Document: 00511296494 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2010
No. 10-50309

Because the 14-month consecutive sentence falls squarely within the bounds of

the eight to 14-month Guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. See

Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d at 809. Because Aguilar-Martinez has failed to rebut

this presumption, his sentence is AFFIRMED. See id.; see also Davis, 602 F.3d

at 646-47.

3

Case: 10-50309 Document: 00511296494 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2010