IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11035

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCELINO GALINDO, JR., also known as Marcelino Garcia Galindo, Jr.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-88-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcelino Galindo, Jr., pleaded guilty to passing and uttering 

counterfeit money and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 

472. The presentence investigation report calculated an advisory guidelines 

imprisonment range of 12 to 18 months. It also noted a greater sentence could 

be warranted because, inter alia, that range underrepresented Galindo’s 

criminal history. The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

 

* 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 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11035 Document: 00513116258 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2015
No. 14-11035

2

sentencing factors and determined that a sentence of 30 months was “an 

appropriate sentence in this case” since Galindo’s criminal history indicated 

that he is “a person who needs to understand that he can’t continue to violate 

the laws.” 

After the district court excused the parties and concluded the 

proceedings, Galindo made a generic objection to the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of the 30-month sentence. He received no response 

to his objection and asks us to remand for resentencing on that basis. It is not 

clear from the record whether the district court heard Galindo’s objection, but 

nothing in the record indicates that such an objection would have been 

sustained. Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, we will treat the 

objection as having been implicitly overruled.

Galindo challenges his sentence as being substantively unreasonable 

because it overvalued the significance of his criminal history and was greater 

than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. The Government argues 

that because the objection made in the district court was a generic one, the 

issue raised here should be reviewed only for plain error. We decline to 

determine the applicable standard of review here as the sentence should be 

upheld under either standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 

525 (5th Cir. 2008). For purposes of our reasonableness analysis, then, we will 

proceed as though Galindo’s objection was heard, was sufficient to preserve the 

specific challenge he makes here, and was denied. We thus review the 

reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

According to Galindo, the district court erred in balancing the § 3553(a) 

factors by aggrandizing his criminal history, which was rife with stale, lowlevel offenses, and minimizing his positive attributes as attested to by his 

 Case: 14-11035 Document: 00513116258 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2015
No. 14-11035

3

mother. Galindo’s argument is effectively a request for this court to reweigh 

the sentencing factors. The sentencing court, however, is in the best position 

to find facts and judge their import. See id. Giving “due deference to the 

district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify” the 12-

month variance here, we conclude that the 30-month sentence imposed by the 

district court is substantively reasonable. See id.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11035 Document: 00513116258 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/15/2015