### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-31281 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LUIS B. CALIXTO, SR., Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11-CR-316-3

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis B. Calixto, Sr., pleaded guilty t o aiding a nd ab e t ting the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312 and 2 and was sentenced t o a within-guidelines sentence of 57 months in p rison and three years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $309,933.78. Calixto argues that the district court erred when it failed to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Because Calixto f ailed to present this argument in U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 1, 2013 Ly l e W . Cayce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-31281 Document: 00512393281 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2013No. 12-31281

the di s t r i c t c o urt, we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2 009). U nder the plain error standard, C alixto must show a clear or obvious forfeited error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 5 56 U.S. 129, 1 35 (2009). Even if Calixto makes the r equired showing, this c ourt retains the discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See id. “The district c ourt must adequately explain the sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 5 6 4 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation m arks a nd c itation omitted). The record r e f l e c ts that the district court k new about Calixto’s coconspirators’ pleas and sentences, listened to Calixto’s arguments f or a more lenient sentence, b ut expressed its s trong disagreement with Calixto’s arguments regarding his culpability. The district court also stated that it had c onsidered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the Sentencing Guidelines in choosing Calixto’s w i t h in-guidelines sentence of 57 months. The district court’s explanation of the chosen s entence is procedurally sound. See Rita v . United States , 5 51 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007); United States v. Rodriguez , 523 F.3d 519, 525-26 (5th Cir. 2008). Even if the district court’s r e a s o n s were not a dequately stated at sentencing, the dis t ri c t court’s statement of reasons specifically identifies the § 3553(a) factors relied u pon by the district c ourt in s electing Calixto’s sentence. A district court’s failure t o orally advise a defendant of its reasons for imposing

a s pecific sentence is not reversible p lain error when supported by writ t e n
reasons. United States v. Gore , 298 F.3d 322, 3 25-26 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the district cou r t ’ s explanation in the statement of reasons “would render remand a meaningless formality.” See id. at 325. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-31281 Document: 00512393281 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2013