IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50865

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NATHANIEL ADONIZ DIAZ-ARIAS, also known as Fernando HernandezGonzalez, also known as Nathaniel Diaz-Arias, also known as Adoniz Diaz-Arias,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-456-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nathaniel Adoniz Diaz-Arias (Diaz) was convicted of illegal reentry after

removal. Diaz appeals his within-guidelines sentence. He argues that his

sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to

accomplish the goals of sentencing listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district

court considered Diaz’s request for leniency, but it ultimately determined that

a 57-month sentence was appropriate. Diaz’s mere disagreement with the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 6, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-50865 Document: 00511592671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2011
No. 10-50865

propriety of the sentence imposed does not suffice to rebut the presumption of

reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. Cf. United States

v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v.

Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008).

Diaz also argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because

the district court plainly erred by failing to adequately explain his sentence.

Because Diaz did not raise this argument in the district court, we review the

issue for plain error only. See United States v. Ronquillo, 508 F.3d 744, 748 (5th

Cir. 2007). To show plain error, a defendant must show a forfeited error that is

clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States,

129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the

discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Diaz cannot show that

any error of the district court in failing to adequately explain his sentence

affected his substantial rights because nothing in the record indicates that a

more extensive explanation would have changed his 57-month sentence. See

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009). 

In addition, Diaz contends that the district court plainly erred by failing

to ascertain whether he reviewed the presentence report (PSR) with counsel. 

Diaz cannot show that the district court’s failure to ascertain whether he

reviewed the PSR with counsel affected his substantial rights because he did not

object to anything contained in the PSR and because the district court provided

him the opportunity to address any sentencing issues at the sentencing hearing.

See United States v. Esparza-Gonzales, 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus,

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50865 Document: 00511592671 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2011