IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50158

No. 10-50160

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALONSO ARREOLA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-2302-2

USDC No. 3:09-CR-3000-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 14, 2011

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: 10-50158 Document: 00511381581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2011
No. 10-50158

No. 10-50160

Alonso Arreola-Garcia, an illegal alien, appeals (1) the forty-six-month

prison sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty of illegally reentering the United

States after having been deported (No. 10-50160) and (2) the consecutive sixmonth sentence imposed upon revocation of the supervised release he was serving when he committed the illegal reentry (No. 10-50158). We consolidate the

appeals. See United States v. Rodriguez, 564 F.3d 735, 737 (5th Cir. 2009); FED.

R. APP. P. 3(b)(2).

Arreola-Garcia did not object to any procedural or substantive error in

either sentence, so we review them only for plain error. See United States v.

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009); United

States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To succeed under that

standard, Arreola-Garcia must show an error that is clear or obvious and that

affects his substantial rights, but even so, we will exercise our discretion to correct any error only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423,

1429 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To the extent that Arreola-Garcia argues that his sentences are not procedurally reasonable because the court failed to articulate reasons, he cannot meet

the plain-error standard. In imposing the forty-six-month, within-guidelines

sentence for illegal reentry, the district court explained that it had taken into

account the circumstances of the case, Arreola-Garcia’s personal circumstances,

and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Where a district court imposes a withinguidelines sentence, it need not provide a lengthy explanation, Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007), and the court’s discussion was sufficient. As for

the six-month, within-guidelines sentence after revocation of supervised release,

Arreola-Garcia cannot show that his substantial rights were violated, because

of the great degree of deference this court gives to within-guidelines sentences

2

Case: 10-50158 Document: 00511381581 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2011
No. 10-50158

No. 10-50160

and because he does not contend, and nothing in the record suggests, that a

more thorough explanation would have resulted in a different sentence. See

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 263 (citing Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364).

As for substantive reasonableness, Arreola-Garcia challenges the weight

the district court gave to the relevant sentencing factors, but this court will not

reweigh those factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Moreover, the illegal-reentry sentence was at the bottom of the guideline range and

was the sentence that Arreola-Garcia’s counsel requested at sentencing. Thus,

Arreola-Garcia cannot show plain error. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008).

Arreola-Garcia argues that the court should not have ordered his sixmonth sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release to run consecutively to his sentence for illegal reentry. A court has the discretion to order consecutive sentences in this context, 18 U.S.C. § 3584; United States v. Gonzalez,

250 F.3d 923, 927-29 (5th Cir. 2001); indeed, under the guidelines, consecutive

sentences are preferred, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4). As for ArreolaGarcia’s argument that the two sentences combined to produce an unreasonable

total prison term, this court has rejected similar arguments. See United States

v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the court

did not err, plainly or otherwise, in ordering consecutive sentences.

The appeals are CONSOLIDATED, and the judgments of sentence are

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 10-50158 Document: 00511381581 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/14/2011