Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Alberto CORDOVA-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-27
Citations: 699 F. App'x 420
Docket Number: No. 17-40133 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Alberto CORDOVA-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 420–422

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Alberto CORDOVA-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40133 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed October 27, 2017
Lauretta Drake Bahry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Plaintiff-Appellee
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, John Moreno Parras, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Mario Alberto Cor-dova-Zarate appeals his 27-month sentence of imprisonment for illegally reentering the United States after deportation following a felony conviction. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). He argues that the district court erred in recommending that he receive credit for time he spent in state custody before his transfer to federal custody because the recommendation does not have binding effect.
Cordova-Zarate did not object when the district court made the recommendation at his sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we review the issue for plain error. United States v. Kirklin, 701 F.3d 177, 178 (5th Cir. 2012).
The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), determines what credit, if any, will be awarded. 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); see Leal v. Tombone, 341 F.3d 427, 428 (5th Cir. 2003). Because a nonbinding recommendation could serve the salutary purpose of alerting the BOP to time the defendant spent in state custody that might apply to his federal sentence, Cordova-Zarate fails to show that the recommendation amounted to clear or obvious error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.