IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50987

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIA E. VILLEGAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-278-3

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria E. Villegas was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. She was sentenced 

at the top of the sentencing guidelines range to a 60-month term of 

imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. The district 

court ordered that the sentence of imprisonment run consecutively with 

 

* 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 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-50987 Document: 00513111339 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2015
No. 14-50987

2

a sentence imposed in case number DR-12-CR-00701(04), which related to 

Villegas’s conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

marijuana. The instant offense was committed two days after Villegas was 

sentenced in that case and while she was released on bond. 

Villegas contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the prior drug conviction was triple-counted in determining the 

guidelines range. She asserts that the sentence is greater than necessary to 

achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Villegas recognizes that 

double counting of prior convictions under the Guidelines is generally 

permissible. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009);

United States v. Calbat, 266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2001). She asserts, 

nevertheless, that double-counting in this case resulted in an unreasonable 

sentence in violation of her right to due process. 

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences are 

reviewed for procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse 

of discretion standard. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th 

Cir. 2010). Because Villegas did not object to the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence, our review is for plain error. See United States 

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain error, Villegas 

must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects her 

substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If 

she makes such a showing, we have discretion to correct the error but only if it 

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. See id.

Villegas recognizes that this court may regard her arguments as 

foreclosed by its prior decisions. They have been raised for the purpose of 

preserving them for possible further review by the Supreme Court. She has 

 Case: 14-50987 Document: 00513111339 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2015
No. 14-50987

3

failed to rebut the presumption of correctness applicable to her withinguidelines sentence and has failed to show that the district court committed 

any error, plain or otherwise, in imposing the sentence. See United States v. 

Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 596-97 (5th Cir. 2012); Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-92. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-50987 Document: 00513111339 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2015