### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 1 8
- 50957 c/w No. 18
- 50958 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff
- Appellee
v. FERNANDO QUINTELA
- GALINDO Defendant
- Appellant Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:13
- CR
- 488
- 3 USDC No. 4:18
- CR
- 211
- 1 Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Fernando Quintela
- Galindo appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release . He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his 2 4 - month term of imprisonment, which fell within the range of the guidelines policy statement and which w as ordered to run

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 13, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50957 Document: 00515073935 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2019No. 1 8
- 50957 c/w No. 18
- 50958

2 consecutively with the sentence imposed for the new law violation of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana . Sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are reviewed under 1 8 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4)’ s “plainly unreasonable” standard, which is more deferential than the reasonableness standard applicable to sentences imposed upon conviction. See United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court heard Quintela
- Galindo’s mitigating arguments and concluded that a consecutive, within
- guidelines sentence of 2 4 months was appropriate. His argument s here amount to a disagreement with the district court ’s balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and decision to r un the sentences consecutively. T his court will not reweigh those factors. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) . Further, he cannot establish any error in connection with the district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences. See U nited States v. Cotroneo , 89 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1996) ; see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s. Quintela
- Galindo has not overcome the presumption of reasonable ness that applies . See United States v. Lopez
Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 808
- 09 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court’s revocation sentence is affirmed (No. 18
- 50957) . Although Quintela
- Galindo appealed the judgment on the new law violation, he raises no challenge to that conviction or sentence, citing the appeal waiver in his plea agreement . Thus, the judgment underlying that appeal (No. 18
- 50958) is likewise affirmed . Quintela
- Galindo’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel which, on its face, is labeled “ex parte,” is stricken for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(b) and (d) requiring service of all filings and proof thereof. Alternatively, it is denied as untimely . See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902
- 03 (5th Cir. 1998) . Case: 18-50957 Document: 00515073935 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2019No. 1 8
- 50957 c/w No. 18
- 50958

3 AFFIRMED ; MOTION TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL STRICKEN . Case: 18-50957 Document: 00515073935 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/13/2019