UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________ _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. LUIS CARLOS PE NA-MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 16-2075 (D.C. No. 2:16- CR-01028-WJ-1) (D. N.M.)

__________________ _______________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

__________________ _______________ Before LUCERO , MATHESON , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

__________________ _______________ Mr. Luis Carlos Pena-Marquez viol ated the terms of his supervised release by illegally reen tering the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court imposed a sentence of 12 months, with 9 of these monthsrunning concurrently with another sentence of 30 months. Mr. PenaMarquez argues that the district co urt failed to explain the 12-month sentence. We affirm.

* The parties do not request oral argu ment, and it would not be helpful. As a result, we are deciding th e appeal based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgme nt does not constitute bi nding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But our order and judgment may be ci ted for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 26, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Because this appeal point was not made in district court, we apply the plain-error standard. United States v. Romero , 491 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2007). We can reverse only if Mr. Pena -Marquez show s (1) that an error was made (2) th at is plain (3) that a ffects Mr. Pena-Marquez’s substantial rights and (4) that affect s the “fairness, in tegrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Chavez , 723 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir. 2013). We reject the appeal poi nt at the second step: If an error existed, it would not have been plain. At the second step, an error is co nsidered “plain” only if it is “so clear or obvious that it could not be subject to any reasonable dispute.” United States v. Courtney , 816 F.3d 681, 684 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 2016 WL 4141537 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2016). At sentencing, the district court found that the gu ideline range was 12-18 months and noted that Mr. Pena-Marquez had ke pt entering the country illegally. When given an opportunity, de fense counsel did not address how long the sent ence should be. Instead, defense counsel asked only that the court run at least part of the sentence concurrently with the 30-month sentence. The court complied, running 9 of the 12 months concurrently with the 30-month sentence. The district court had to give a general explanation for the sentence. United States v. Martinez-Barragan , 545 F.3d 894, 903 (10th Cir. 2008). The district court arguably provided a general explanation by finding the3 applicable guideline range and noting that Mr. Pena-Marquez had continued to enter the coun try illegally. Bu t if that explanation were not enough, the deficien cy would not have been obvious. Because the 12-month sentence fe ll within the guideline range and Mr. Pena-Marquez has not relied on any factors outs ide the guidelines, the district court did not need “to explai n on the record how the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors jus tify the sentence.” United States v. Lopez-Flores , 444 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2006). Thus, the court had no obvious duty to explain the sentence beyond finding the applicable guideline range and remarking on Mr. Pena-Marqu ez’s illegal entries into the country. In these circumstances, we reject Mr. Pena-Mar quez’s appellate ch allenge under the plain-error standard. Affirmed. Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge