IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40695

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FERNANDO ROMERO-ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-28-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Romero-Romero (Romero) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and 

received a within-guidelines sentence of 37 months in prison. Additionally, the 

district court revoked Romero’s supervised release term for a prior illegal 

reentry conviction and imposed a consecutive within-guidelines 15-month 

sentence. On appeal, Romero challenges the validity of his guilty plea 

conviction, alleging that the magistrate judge failed to advise him fully of 

* 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

May 20, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40695 Document: 00512636497 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2014
No. 13-40695

various provisions included within Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Because he did not object to any alleged Rule 11 violations at the 

rearraignment proceedings, we review for plain error only. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 

542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Romero has not shown a reasonable probability that 

he would not have pleaded guilty but for the alleged deficiencies in the Rule 11 

colloquy. See Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83.

Additionally, Romero maintains that the imposition of consecutive 

sentences for the instant offense and for the supervised release revocation was 

procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Although his notice of appeal 

included the case number for only the instant illegal reentry case, he did seek 

to appeal “the sentencing conducted on June 13, 2013.” The sentences were 

imposed after a joint hearing on both his illegal reentry case and his revocation 

proceedings. We liberally construe his notice of appeal and address the 

challenges Romero raises to the consecutive nature of the sentences. See

United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 949 (5th Cir. 1994).

Romero contends that the district court failed to give adequate reasons 

for the aggregate 52-month sentence imposed and failed to consider factors 

that would warrant a lower sentence. Because he did not raise objections to 

these alleged procedural errors in the district court, we review the arguments 

for plain error. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th 

Cir. 2009). The record reflects that the district court provided reasons for the 

sentence relating to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cf. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (listing a failure to consider the § 3553(a) 

factors as a possible procedural error). Although the district court did not cite 

to every factor listed in the statute, it was not required to do so. See Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Moreover, Romero has not shown that 

2

 Case: 13-40695 Document: 00512636497 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2014
No. 13-40695

any additional explanation would have resulted in his receiving a lower 

sentence. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65.

The brief submitted by Romero may also be read as challenging the 

substantive reasonableness of his sentences. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. His 

failure to object on grounds of substantive unreasonableness triggers plain 

error review. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). 

We have rejected the argument that a guidelines sentence under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2 is unreasonable because the Guidelines double-count a defendant’s 

criminal history. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 

2009). Romero’s general disagreement with the propriety of his sentence and 

the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness that attaches to within-guidelines sentences. 

See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. 

Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

Romero has not demonstrated that the district court erred, much less 

plainly erred, by sentencing him to within-guidelines consecutive sentences of 

37 and 15 months in prison. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-

92. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-40695 Document: 00512636497 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2014