* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10560

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MARIO ALEMAN-MARTINEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-3-1

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Mario Aleman-Martinez (Aleman) appeals the 78-month sentence of

imprisonment imposed for his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after

deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Aleman argues that his

sentence should be vacated because the district court failed to verify that he had

read and discussed the PSR with his attorney, as required by Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A). Because Aleman failed to object properly on this

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 12, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10560

1 Aleman failed to object in the district court on this basis. On appeal, he

contends that plain error review should not apply because he was prevented

from making an objection by the district judge’s statement: “You may stand

aside.” We disagree that such a statement prevented Aleman’s objection and

conclude that plain error review is the appropriate standard. However, we note

that our opinion on this second issue does not turn on the standard of review.

2 Aleman contended that he may be a United States citizen due to his

mother’s alleged birth in the United States. Thus, his plea agreement allowed

him to seek a Certificate of Citizenship and withdraw his plea should that

certificate issue. Aleman’s attorney did not contend at the hearing that this

situation presented a reason for a reduced sentence.

2

basis at sentencing, we review his claim for plain error. United States v. Krout,

66 F.3d 1420, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995). To show plain error, the appellant must

show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.

United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 77

U.S.L.W. 3398 (Jan. 12, 2009) (No. 08-7559). If the appellant makes such a

showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Baker,

538 F.3d at 332. Because Aleman has failed to demonstrate that he was

prejudiced by any alleged deviation from Rule 32, we find no reversible error.

Aleman also argues that his sentence was procedurally unsound because

the district court’s statement of reasons was inadequate.1 Aleman stated in

writing and in open court that he had no objections to the PSR, and he did not

identify any 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor that weighed in favor of a lower sentence.

Aleman’s attorney only stated that Aleman has “an action pending to validate

prior actions that may have made him a citizen when he was a child.”2 The

district court then pronounced its sentence of 78 months of imprisonment and

stated, “I believe this sentence does adequately address the sentencing objectives

of punishment and deterrence.” In light of the record, these reasons were

sufficient to comply with § 3553(c)(2). See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d

523, 525-26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008).
No. 08-10560

3

AFFIRMED.