Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Amancio ABURTO-GAMINO, also known as Lucero Amburto, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-24
Citations: 697 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 17-10222 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Amancio ABURTO-GAMINO, also known as Lucero Amburto, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Amancio ABURTO-GAMINO, also known as Lucero Amburto, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-10222 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 24, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Amanda R. Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Margaret Loraine Schmucker, Cedar Park, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Amando Aburto-Gamino was convicted of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to serve 78 months in prison. Now, he argues that the district court erred by denying him the third point for acceptance of responsibility. This denial was based on the Government's refusal to move for the third point because he would not waive his appellate rights.
Sentences are reviewed for reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In conducting this reasonableness review, we first examine whether the district court committed any procedural errors, such as incorrectly calculating the advisory guidelines range. 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Next, we determine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable. 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
The district court erred by denying Aburto-Gamino the third point for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Palacios, 756 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2014). Nonetheless, the error is harmless, as the district court's remarks- show that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the error. See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712, 713-19 (5th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
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.