IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50957

c/w No. 18-50958

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FERNANDO QUINTELA-GALINDO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals 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 24-month term of imprisonment, which fell within the 

range of the guidelines policy statement and which was ordered to run 

 

* 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

August 13, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50957 Document: 00515073935 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2019
No. 18-50957

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 18 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 24 months was 

appropriate. His arguments here amount to a disagreement with the district 

court’s balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and decision to 

run the sentences consecutively. This 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 United 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 reasonableness that applies. See United States v. LopezVelasquez, 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: 08/13/2019
No. 18-50957

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