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

No. 12-50685 c/w No. 12-50689 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE FRIAS-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CR-2096-1 USDC No. 2:12-CR-66-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Frias-Rodriguez (Frias) pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully in the United States and was sentenced to a guideline range term of imprisonment of 21 months to be followed b y a th r e e - y ear term of supervised release. The distri c t court also revoked Frias’s term of supervised release on a prior conviction and i mposed a sentence at t he t o p of the advisory range of 18 months, 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 April 29, 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: 12-50685 Document: 00512223768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2013No. 12-50685 c/w No. 12-50689
to run c onsecutively to the illegal reentry sentence. Frias i s a ppealing f rom the imp o s i tion of the consecutive r evocation s entence, arguing that it was not reasonable b ecause the stacked sentence was greater than necessary to meet the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Frias contends that review of his r evocation s entence s h o u l d be for reasonableness. B ecause Frias failed to object to th e r e a sonableness of his revocation sentence, we need not reach any dispute o v e r s t a ndards of review because t his court’s review i s f or plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 2 56, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009); Puckett v. U nited States , 556 U .S. 1 29, 135 (2009). Frias a rgues t hat t he imposition of the consecutive sentence was plainly unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of the sentencing factors in § 3553(a). The imposition of the consecutive revocation s e n tence i s authorized by statute and preferred u nder the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 8 4 ; U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s., & comment. (n.4). The district court’s comments at sentencing reflect th a t i t h a d considered the permissible § 3553(a) factors in determining that the c onsecutive 1 8-month revocation sentence, which wa s w i t h i n the advisory range, was an appropriate a nd reasonable sentence. Frias has failed to show that the district court, in determining that the revocati o n s e n t ence should run consecutiv e l y to the sentence for the new o ffense, committed any error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. Frias has n ot challenged his illeg a l reentry conviction or the s entence imposed for that offense. Thus, he has abandoned any claims arising out of that conviction or sentence. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th C ir. 1993) The convictions and sentences in both of the appeals are AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-50685 Document: 00512223768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2013