Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres Chavira CORONA, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andres Chavira Corona, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-09
Citations: 599 F. App'x 204
Docket Number: Nos. 14-50715, 14-50718
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres Chavira CORONA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andres Chavira Corona, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 204–205

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres Chavira CORONA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andres Chavira Corona, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 14-50715, 14-50718
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 9, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Following his guilty plea to attempted illegal reentry and false personation in immigration matters, the district court sentenced Andres Chavira Corona (Chavira) to 33 months of imprisonment. The district court also revoked a term of supervised release that had been imposed following a previous illegal reentry conviction and imposed a revocation sentence of 24 months of imprisonment, with 12 months of the sentence to run consecutive to the 33-month sentence that was imposed for the immigration offenses. Although he filed notices of appeal in both cases, Chavi-ra's attorney-prepared brief challenges only the revocation sentence. However, to the extent that Chavira intended to appeal the non-revocation sentence, his argument is waived because it is insufficiently briefed. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir.2010).
Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under the "plainly unreasonable" standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.2011). We do not address Chavira's argument that this court should not employ the plainly unreasonable standard because Chavira did not preserve his arguments in the district court and the appeal is thus governed by the plain error standard of review. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir.2009). To demonstrate plain error, Chavira must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
The revocation sentence fell within the advisory range and was consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines' policy regarding consecutive sentences. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s.; § 7B1.4, p.s. The sentence was thus entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir.2006). Chavira had an extensive criminal history, resulting in 20 criminal history points and a criminal history category of VI. His arguments regarding the overstated seriousness of the offense and his personal circumstances amount to a mere disagreement with the district court's balance of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors, and this court will not second-guess the district court's balancing of those factors. See United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 344-45 (5th Cir.2011). Chavira has not shown that the revocation sentence is plainly erroneous. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 260-61. Accordingly, 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.