* 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. 12-50063

c/w No. 12-50083

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

MARCO ANTONIO MORALES-PEREZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:10-CR-1589-3

USDC No. 2:11-CR-1185-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marco Antonio Morales-Perez was convicted of illegal reentry into the

United States and was sentenced to serve 46 months in prison and a three-year

term of supervised release. Additionally, the term of supervised release he was

serving when he committed the illegal reentry offense was revoked, and he was

sentenced to serve 10 months in prison on the revocation. He appeals both

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 13, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 12-50063

and No. 12-50083

2

judgments, and we consolidate the appeals. See United States v. Rodriguez, 564

F.3d 735, 737 (5th Cir. 2009); FED. R. APP. P. 3(b)(2).

The arguments that Morales-Perez currently raises were not presented to

the district court, so they are considered under the plain error standard. See

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009); United States v. Peltier,

505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To prevail under that standard, he 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 such error only if it

“seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.” See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135 (internal quotation marks omitted).

First, Morales-Perez argues that his illegal reentry sentence is

substantively unreasonable because his prior conspiracy conviction was unfairly

counted in multiple places in the presentence report. As he concedes, this

double-counting was permissible under the applicable Guideline. See United

States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Calbat,

266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2001). Insofar as he contends that this acceptable

double-counting resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence, his

arguments on this issue amount to no more than a disagreement with the

propriety of the sentence, which does not show error. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339

(5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Morales-Perez has shown no error in connection

with his illegal reentry conviction and sentence.

Next, Morales-Perez contends that the revocation is invalid because the

term of supervised release imposed for his prior conviction is invalid. A

defendant may not use a supervised release proceeding to challenge the validity

of his original conviction or sentence. United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170

(5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d 719, 721 (5th Cir. 2001). Consequently, the
No. 12-50063

and No. 12-50083

3

arguments that Morales-Perez presents pertaining to his revocation proceedings

are to no avail.

The appeals are CONSOLIDATED, and the judgments are AFFIRMED.