Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gerardo Omar FRANCO-DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-14
Citations: 714 F. App'x 469
Docket Number: No. 17-40339 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gerardo Omar FRANCO-DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 714
Pages: 469–469

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gerardo Omar FRANCO-DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40339 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 14, 2018
Anna Elizabeth Kalluri, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
James Scott Sullivan, Esq., Law Offices of J. Scott Sullivan, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gerardo Omar Franco-De La Cruz appeals the 58-month sentence imposed on his guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because Franco-De La Cruz did not alert the district court to the specific issues he now raises on appeal, we review for plain error. See United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009).
First, Franco-De La Cruz argues that the district court improperly limited the extent of his downward departure by considering improper factors. See United States v. Desselle, 450 F.3d 179, 182 (5th Cir. 2006). If we assume without deciding that the district court's comments at sentencing reflect a clear or obvious error, we nonetheless conclude that Franco-De La Cruz has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 424 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc); United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 341 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 526, 196 L.Ed.2d 408 (2016) (finding harmless error where the district court merely "muddled the steps" in formulating the sentence).
Second, Franeo-De La Cruz disagrees with how the district court balanced the pertinent § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We perceive no reversible error. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Malone, 828 F.3d at 342 & n.41.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5m 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.