IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50685

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODOLFO BORJA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-1586-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rodolfo Borja pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute 500 grams or more but less than five kilograms of cocaine and was 

sentenced to five years of probation. He now appeals his above-guidelines 

sentence of 36 months of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his 

probation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3565. Because Borja did not raise his procedural 

arguments in the district court and did not object to the substantive 

 

* 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

July 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50685 Document: 00513599248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2016
No. 15-50685

2

reasonableness of his sentence, we review for plain error. See United States v. 

Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326, 332 (5th Cir. 2013).

We reject Borja’s claim that the district court committed procedural error 

by relying on the bare allegations set forth in the revocation petition. Borja 

had his case placed on the uncontested docket, and he did not object to the 

admission of the petition into the evidence or challenge the allegations 

contained therein. The petition detailed the offenses forming the basis for the 

revocation, including recitations of statements from the responding officer, the 

victim, and a witness. The information contained in the petition had sufficient 

indicia of reliability and, thus, the district court did not commit error, plain or 

otherwise, by making factual findings based upon it. See United States v. 

Nava, 624 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Manthei, 913 F.2d 

1130, 1138 (5th Cir. 1990).

The district court considered Borja’s request for a within-guidelines 

sentence, including mitigating factors, and clearly explained its reasons for 

sentencing him above that range. Therefore, Borja has not shown any 

procedural error related to the district court’s explanation for imposing an 

above-guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59

(2007); United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 261-62 (5th Cir. 2009).

Finally, we find meritless the claim that Borja’s sentence was 

substantively unreasonable because the district court erroneously took into 

account or afforded too much weight to a 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor 

or his previous sentence of probation. The district court did not err by citing 

the need to promote respect for the law or to provide just punishment when 

sentencing Borja. See United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497-98 & n.4 

(5th Cir. 2012). Moreover, to the extent that the district court relied upon the 

 Case: 15-50685 Document: 00513599248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2016
No. 15-50685

3

leniency of his previous sentence of probation, that consideration did not 

constitute error. Id. at 499.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50685 Document: 00513599248 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2016