IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40383

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

JUAN ALBERTO SALAZAR, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:15-CR-550-1 

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Alberto Salazar appeals the 51-month within-guidelines sentence 

he received after he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). He argues that his 

sentence is unreasonable. Because Salazar did not preserve the procedural 

error he now raises and did not object to the substantive reasonableness of his 

sentence after it was imposed, we review for plain error. See Puckett v. United 

 

* 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

Fif h Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40383 Document: 00514123903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2017
No. 16-40383

2 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 

(2007); United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009); United States 

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Salazar’s assertion that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable 

because the district court misapprehended his objection to the U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) enhancement is disingenuous, as he never asked the district 

court to vary from the calculated guidelines range, and the record does not 

show that the district court erroneously believed it could not depart 

downwardly. See United States v. Hernandez, 457 F.3d 416, 424 & n.5 (5th 

Cir. 2006). Further, the district court considered all of the evidence and 

arguments before it and had a reasoned basis for exercising its decisionmaking 

authority. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007); United States 

v. Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d 289, 293-95 (5th Cir. 2013). Salazar fails to show 

that his sentence was substantively unreasonable as he has not rebutted the 

presumption we accord his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). He, therefore, fails to 

show plain error with respect to the procedural or substantive reasonableness 

of his sentence. See Puckett, 536 U.S. at 135.

We review for plain error Salazar’s arguments that § 922(g)(5)(A) 

violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process 

Clause with respect to his equal protection rights, as he did not raise them in 

the district court. See United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 155 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Salazar fails to show plain error. See Puckett, 536 U.S. at 135; United States 

v. Portillo-Munoz, 643 F.3d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 2011) (Second Amendment); 

United States v. Williams, 365 F.3d 399, 407-08 (5th Cir. 2004) (due process); 

United States v. Mirza, 454 F. App’x at 249, 258-59 (5th Cir. 2011) (equal 

protection). 

 AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-40383 Document: 00514123903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2017