IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50173

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO TORRES-VASQUEZ, also known as Pedro Torres,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-635-2

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Torres-Vasquez (Torres) appeals his above guidelines 24-month

imprisonment term and life term of supervised release imposed upon the second

revocation of his supervised release. Torres argues that the sentence is

unreasonable. 

Revocation sentences generally are reviewed under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)’s

“plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011). However, because no objections were

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 25, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 12-50173 Document: 00512154137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2013
No. 12-50173

made at the revocation hearing, this court’s review of Torres’s revocation

sentence is limited to plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256,

259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v.

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

this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the

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

Torres argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than

necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Torres argues

that a sentence within the advisory guideline range would have been sufficient

considering that his violations were not drug related and reflected only his

continuing struggle to control his anger during an argument. However, the

district court expressly “considered the policy statements contained within

Chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines manual and [found] their application to

be inadequate.” Although the district court did not expressly refer to § 3553, it

was aware of Torres’s history and characteristics in that it presided over his first

revocation proceeding. Furthermore, the district court’s comments regarding

Torres’s “smart aleck” attitude reveal its determination that a guidelines

sentence would not adequately deter Torres’s propensity for failing to follow the

rules and would not sufficiently protect the public. See § 3553(a)(2)(B)-(C). 

Therefore, Torres has not shown that the district court failed to consider the

sentencing factors in § 3553. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 261. Torres’s sentence

of 24 months, to be followed by a lifetime of supervised release, is within the

statutory maximum revocation penalty and does not constitute error, much less

plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

Torres also argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause was violated when the

district court increased his supervised release term from five years to life. As he

2

 Case: 12-50173 Document: 00512154137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2013
No. 12-50173

acknowledges, however, this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Jackson,

559 F.3d 368, 371 (5th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED. 

3

 Case: 12-50173 Document: 00512154137 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/25/2013