Court Opinion

ID: 9353772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 19:01:11.682862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:36.998233
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10690        Document: 00516608071             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/12/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10690
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                               January 12, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Fidelmar Hernandez-Jimenez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:20-CR-457-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Fidelmar Hernandez-Jimenez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the
   United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
   and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. He contends that the
   district court failed to adequately respond to his arguments for a lesser
   sentence. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
   affirmance, asserting that Hernandez-Jimenez’s challenge to the adequacy of
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10690      Document: 00516608071          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/12/2023

                                    No. 22-10690

   the sentence explanation is foreclosed by United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986
   F.3d 583 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207 (2021). Alternatively, the
   Government requests an extension of thirty days in which to file a merits
   brief.
            Although Hernandez-Jimenez concedes that his challenge to the
   adequacy of the district court’s explanation of his sentence is foreclosed,
   review of this argument entails a more involved analysis than is appropriate
   for a summary affirmance case. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d
   1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, we DENY the motion for summary
   affirmance. However, because this case may be resolved without further
   briefing, we also DENY, as unnecessary, the Government’s alternative
   motion for an extension of time. See United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289,
   1290 (5th Cir. 2019).
            Because Hernandez-Jimenez did not object to the district court’s
   failure to address his arguments for a below guidelines sentence, we review
   only for plain error. See Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 585-86. In this case, the
   record reflects that the district court “listened to each argument . . . then
   simply found these circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower
   than the Guidelines range.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007).
   Notwithstanding the brief nature of its explanation, the district court’s
   explanation suffices to show that it considered the parties’ arguments and
   had a reasoned basis for its sentence. See United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d
   728, 732 (5th Cir. 2013).      Accordingly, Hernandez-Jimenez failed to
   demonstrate plain error in the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of
   the sentence. See Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 587.
            AFFIRMED.

                                         2