IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10429

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JEREMIAH LEE GUERRA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-103-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeremiah Lee Guerra challenges the 175-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 

50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual). He contends that his 

sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not 

adequately explain its reasons for rejecting his arguments for a sentence at the 

low end of the applicable advisory guidelines range of 140 to 175 months.

 

* 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 16, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10429 Document: 00515274647 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2020
No. 19-10429

2

Because Guerra did not object to the sufficiency of the district court’s 

reasons for the sentence it imposed, our review is for plain error. See United 

States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). For 

sentences within the guidelines range, little explanation is necessary; however, 

when parties present nonfrivolous or legitimate reasons for imposing a 

different sentence, “the judge will normally go further and explain why he has 

rejected those arguments.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007).

Here, the district court did not plainly err with respect to the sufficiency 

of its explanation for the sentence it imposed. The record reflects that the court 

considered Guerra’s arguments for a sentence at the low end of the guidelines 

range based on his assertion that the methamphetamine coming from Mexico 

was very cheap, very pure, and very much available, which he asserted was 

not the case when the Guidelines were written. When imposing the 175-month 

sentence, the court expressly noted that its sentence “does adequately address 

the sentencing objectives of punishment and deterrence.” Thus, the record 

reflects that the court considered all the evidence and arguments but simply 

found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a lesser sentence in light of the 

Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 358-59. 

The district court’s failure to give additional reasons does not constitute clear 

or obvious error. See id.; Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). In 

addition, to show that the purported failure to give adequate reasons affected 

his substantial rights, Guerra must show that it affected the outcome, i.e., that 

further explanation would have resulted in a lesser sentence. See United 

States v. Martinez, 872 F.3d 293, 303 (5th Cir. 2017); Mondragon-Santiago, 

564 F.3d at 364-65. He makes no such showing.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10429 Document: 00515274647 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2020