### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-40051 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FRANCISCO MORALES MARTINEZ, also known as Jose Luis Gonzal e z Vargas, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CR-1104-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Fr anci s c o Mor al e s M artinez was convicted, by guilty plea, of illegal reentry by a deport e d a l i e n and was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Morales Martinez challenges the district court’s decision to impose a term of supervised release in light of the recent amendments to U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). He contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not explain why U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary2, 201 3 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40051 Document: 00512098732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2013No. 12-40051

it decided to impose a term of supervised release, did not give notice of its intent to depart from the applicable guidelines range by imposing a term of supervised release, a n d di d not properly account for § 5D1.1(c)’s recommendation that no supervised release term be imposed. Because Morales Ma rtinez failed to present these claims to the district court, we review them for plain error only. See U nited States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); see also United States

v. Dominguez-Alvarado , 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012). To establish plain
error, a party must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects the objector’s substantial rights. Puckett v. United States , 55 6 U

. S

. 129, 135 (2009). If the objecting party makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error, but we will do so only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. We conclude that Morales Martinez has not met this standard. As the three-year term of supervised release imposed by the district court was within the applicable s t a t u t o ry and guidelines range, the terms of supervised release

asses s e d w a s n ot a departure. See Dominguez-Alvarado , 695 F.3d at 329. During Morales Martinez’s multi-defendant sentencing hearing, counsel for another defendant noted that the amend e d gu i deline recommended that the court not impose a term of supervise d r e l e a se, to which the district court responde d th a t it was nevertheless including a term of supervised release. When addressing Morales Martinez’s sentence, the district court specifically noted his criminal history and the need for deterrence. In light of these remarks, Morales Martinez has not met the plain error standard with re s p e ct to his term of supervised release. See id. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-40051 Document: 00512098732 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2013