IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50257

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ISAIAS MEDINA-ARGUETA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-697-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Isaias Medina-Argueta pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was

sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

For the first time on appeal, Medina-Argueta argues that the district court, in

sentencing him to three years of supervised release, failed to apply or misapplied

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c).

We review sentences for reasonableness by engaging in a bifurcated

review. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 27, 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: 12-50257 Document: 00512289541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2013
No. 12-50257

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). First, we ensure that the

sentencing court committed no significant procedural error, such as “failing to

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,

selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately

explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the

Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentencing decision is

procedurally sound, we then consider the “substantive reasonableness of the

sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. Because MedinaArgueta raises his argument for the first time on appeal, we review for plain

error; he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects his

substantial rights; and we will correct the error only if it “seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States

v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted).

Medina-Argueta has not demonstrated plain error with respect to his term

of supervised release. The district court stated that it had considered MedinaArgueta’s “background and his history and his previous offenses,” which

included a prior deportation and three-year term of supervised release. The

district court also expressly stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors. 

Based on these facts and because the district court was not called upon to focus

on § 5D1.1(c), Medina-Argueta has not shown that a more detailed explanation

by the district court would have changed the sentence he received, and the

district court’s statement for imposing supervised release is not plainly

erroneous. See Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 330; United States v.

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, MedinaArgueta’s term of supervised release is within the guidelines range; we infer that

the district court considered all the requisite sentencing factors; and MedinaArgueta has not rebutted the presumption that his sentence, including its term

2

 Case: 12-50257 Document: 00512289541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2013
No. 12-50257

of supervised release, is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo,

435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19

(5th Cir. 2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 12-50257 Document: 00512289541 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2013