Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Efrain BALDIVIA, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-17
Citations: 669 F. App'x 705
Docket Number: No. 16-40192 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Efrain BALDIVIA, III, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 705–706

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Efrain BALDIVIA, III, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-40192 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed: 10/17/2016
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Thomas S. Berg, Esq., Mallett Saper Berg, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Efrain Baldivia, III, Pro Se
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Efrain Baldivia, III, appeals the 24-month sentence imposed after revocation of the supervised release term attendant to his conviction for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. He argues for the first time that the district court impermissibly based the above-guidelines sentence on the seriousness of the offense and the need to provide just punishment in violation of United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011). See 18 U.S.C § 3553(a)(2)(A).
Because in the district court Baldivia did not object to the sentence, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the plain error standard, Baldivia must show a plain (clear or obvious) forfeited error that affected 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 does so, we have the discretion to correct the error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id.
Baldivia, however, has not met this standard as the district court's revocation sentence was permissibly based on the "nature" of the allegations of the supervised release violations that it found to be true, not on the "seriousness" of those alleged offenses. See § 3553(a)(1); Miller, 634 F.3d at 844. The non-guidelines sentence does not rise to the level of plain error given Baldivia's history and characteristics, the need to deter future criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public. See § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C); Miller, 634 F.3d at 844.
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.