IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40380

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MARIA IRACHETA-REYES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-1194-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Maria Iracheta-Reyes pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry 

into the United States and received a below-guidelines sentence of 48 months 

in prison as well as a three-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, he 

first argues that he was not properly informed of the maximum possible 

sentence for his offense and would not have pleaded guilty if he had been so 

informed. He notes that the magistrate judge explained the different possible 

* 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

January 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40380 Document: 00512903357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2015
No. 14-40380

maximum sentences available based on his criminal history but complains that 

his plea was not truly informed because he did not know which specific scenario 

would apply to him. 

We review this claim only for plain error due to Iracheta-Reyes’s failure 

to present it to the district court. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 

(2002). To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is 

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

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If the appellant makes such a showing, we 

have the discretion to correct the error, but will do so only if it seriously affects 

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Making 

a showing of plain error “is difficult, as it should be.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(H) requires that a 

defendant who is pleading guilty be informed of “any maximum penalty, 

including imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised release.” The magistrate 

judge complied with the plain language of the Rule. Additionally, there is 

nothing in the record to suggest that Iracheta-Reyes would have insisted on 

going to trial absent the alleged error. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 

542 U.S. 74, 83, 85 (2004); Vonn, 535 U.S. at 74-75. Iracheta-Reyes has not 

shown plain error in connection with his Rule 11 colloquy.

Next, Iracheta-Reyes argues that his sentence is more harsh than 

needed to achieve the aims of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and that both the nonviolent 

nature of his offense and his cultural assimilation warranted a lesser sentence. 

Sentences, whether inside or outside the advisory guidelines range, are 

reviewed for reasonableness in light of the § 3553(a) factors. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When, as in this case, the district court has 

imposed a sentence that deviates from the guidelines range, reasonableness 

2

 Case: 14-40380 Document: 00512903357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2015
No. 14-40380

review requires that we evaluate whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to 

reflect the statutory sentencing factors” set forth in § 3553(a). United States 

v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). 

A non-guidelines sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory 

sentencing factors if the district court (1) did not account for a factor that 

should have been heavily weighted, (2) heavily weighted an unimportant or 

improper factor, or (3) made a clear error of judgment in weighing the 

sentencing factors. Id. at 708. We consider “the totality of the circumstances, 

including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range,” while 

affording “deference” to the district court’s choice of sentence and keeping in 

mind that it may not reverse simply because it would have imposed a different 

sentence. United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

The sentence imposed is not unreasonable. The record shows that the 

district court considered Iracheta-Reyes’s arguments in favor of a belowguidelines sentence, granted this request, and found a 48-month sentence 

appropriate in light of the § 3553(a) factors. There is nothing to indicate that 

the district court’s choice of sentence was grounded in disregard for an 

important factor, a disproportionate weighing of a factor that was not germane, 

or a clearly erroneous weighing of the sentencing factors. See Smith, 440 F.3d 

at 708. Rather, the record shows that the district court chose the sentence it 

felt most appropriate in light of the § 3553(a) factors. That Iracheta-Reyes 

thinks his sentence should have been lower does not mean that it is 

unreasonable. Cf. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (holding that a sentence is not 

unreasonable simply because the appellate court would have chosen a different 

sentence).

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-40380 Document: 00512903357 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/15/2015