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

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 I saias Medina-Argueta pleaded gu i lty t o illegal reentry and was sentenced to 36 m onths of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Medina-Argueta a rgues that the district court, in sentencing him to three years of supervised release, failed to apply o r misapplied U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). We review sentences f o r r e a sonableness by e ngaging in a bifurcated review. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. 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 June 27, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce 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: 12-50257 Document: 00512289541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2013No. 12-50257

Cisneros-Gutierrez , 5 17 F.3d 751, 764 (5th C ir. 2008). First, we ensure that the sentencing court committed no s i gnificant procedural error, such a s “failing to calculate (or i mproperly calculating) t h e Guidelines range, treating the Guide l i n e s a s mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence b ased on clearly er r o n e o u s facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” G a l l , 5 5 2 U.S. at 51. I f the sentencing decision is procedurally sound, we then consider th e “s u b s tantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. Because MedinaArgueta raises his argument for the first time on appeal, w e r e v i ew for plain
error; he m ust show a forfeited error that i s clear or obv i o u s and affects his substantial rights; and we will correct the error only if i t “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States

v. Dominguez-Alvarado , 695 F .3d 324, 3 27-28 (5th Cir. 2 012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Medina-Argueta has n ot demonstrated plai n e rr or with r espect to his term of supervised release. The district court stated th at i t had considered MedinaArgueta’s “background and his history and his previous o f f e nses,” which included a prio r d e p o r t ation and three-year term of supervised release. The district court a lso e xp ressly stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors. Based on these facts and because the district court was n ot called upon to focus

on § 5D1.1(c), Medina-Argueta has not shown that a more detailed explanation by the district court w o uld have changed the sentence he received, and the d i s trict court’s statement for imposing supervised r e lease i s not plain l y
erroneous. See Do m i nguez-Alvarado , 695 F.3d at 330; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357 , 3 6 5 (5th Cir. 2 009). Further, MedinaArgueta’s t erm of supervised release is within the gu i delines range; w e infer that t h e d i s trict court considered all the requisite sentencing factors; and Medi n a Argueta has not r ebutted the presumption that his s entence, including its term
2 Case: 12-50257 Document: 00512289541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2013No. 12-50257

of supervised release, is substantively r easonable. See United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th C ir. 2006); United S tates 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