Court Opinion

ID: 9840042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 00:00:39.679562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.695418
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11198        Document: 00516895569             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                     ____________                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                        FILED
                                      No. 22-11198                             September 14, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Santos Franco-Pacheco,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CR-6-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Elrod, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Santos Franco-Pacheco appeals his sentence for illegal reentry. He
   was serving a state burglary charge when he was sentenced in federal court
   and requested the sentences be served concurrently. His request was denied
   because the district court held the sentences were unrelated. Franco-

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11198      Document: 00516895569          Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                    No. 22-11198

   Pacheco now argues that the district court should have weighed the factors
   in the guidelines section addressing persons with multiple sentences.
          We review for plain error because the original request for concurrent
   sentences was based on mitigating circumstances and so is unrelated to the
   guidelines argument now before us. See United States v. Narez-Garcia, 819
   F.3d 146, 150 (5th Cir. 2016).
          We find no error in this case. The guidelines policy statement
   instructs that district courts do nothing other than consider that sentences
   can be made concurrent or consecutive.          U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d), p.s. &
   comment. (n.4(A)). Neither the policy statement nor the commentary
   requires the district court to explicitly weigh various factors. See United
   States v. Lindsey, 969 F.3d 136, 140 (5th Cir. 2020). We are also unpersuaded
   by his claim that there was a problematic discrepancy in the description of
   the remainder of his state law sentence as the district court has access to the
   PSR with the correct information prior to sentencing.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         2