Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hipolito SEGURA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-26
Citations: 670 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: No. 15-50337 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hipolito SEGURA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hipolito SEGURA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-50337 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 10/26/2016
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane D. Kirstein, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Raymond Meza, Jr., Esq., Counsel, Law Office of Ray Meza, Jr., Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hipólito Segura-Sanchez appeals the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release on the grounds that it is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Review is for plain error because Segura-Sanchez did not object. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009).
Segura-Sanchez fails to demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise. A district court does not procedurally err by weighing some 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors more heavily than others. See United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 375-76 (5th Cir. 2011). His argument fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that applies to his consecutive, within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) & cmt. n.4.
The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.