Opinion ID: 4406570
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: TYC Records

Text: Quintanar argues that the incident reports in the TYC records are the equivalent of bare arrest records, on which a district court may not rely at sentencing. See United States v. Windless, 719 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2013). Because Quintanar specifically objected only to the district court’s preponderance-of-the-evidence findings, we review his challenge to the district court’s consideration of the TYC records for plain error. See United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Quintanar must show “(1) an error (2) that was clear or obvious (3) that affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Avalos-Martinez, 700 F.3d 148, 153 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). If he does, “we have the discretion to correct the error if it ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)). Due to the lack of binding authority that puts Quintanar’s argument beyond reasonable debate, he cannot show that any error was clear or obvious. See United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377–78 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, even if the district court did commit clear or obvious error by relying on the incident reports in the TYC records, Quintanar cannot show that the error affected his substantial rights; the district court primarily relied on “other significant, permissible factors,” such as his four adjudicated juvenile assaults and eight adult convictions, when determining that an upward variance was appropriate. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 775 F.3d 706, 714 (5th Cir. 2015) overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 547–63 (5th Cir. 2013). 3 Case: 17-11244 Document: 00514994719 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/13/2019 No. 17-11244 (quoting United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483, 495 (5th Cir. 2010)). Thus, the district court did not commit plain error.