Court Opinion

ID: 9895713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:01:23.785586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:27.534722
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10106   Document: 00516959240   Page: 1   Date Filed: 11/07/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                           ____________
                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                            No. 23-10106
                          Summary Calendar                       FILED
                          ____________                    November 7, 2023
                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                     Clerk

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Andrew P. Arellano,

                                               Defendant—Appellant,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 23-10107
                          _____________

   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Andrew Perez Arellano,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 23-10106         Document: 00516959240             Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                      ______________________________

                     Appeals from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                      USDC Nos. 3:20-CR-627-1, 3:20-CR-565-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Andrew Perez Arellano pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a
   controlled substance. The district court sentenced him to 240 months in
   prison. A revocation hearing immediately followed. While on supervised
   release, Arellano violated the conditions of his release multiple times, and
   committed another federal offense that involved an extensive drug
   conspiracy and large quantities of drugs. Because of this conduct, the
   Government argued for the statutory-maximum revocation sentence and for
   it to be run consecutively to his sentence for conspiracy to distribute a
   controlled substance. The district court agreed, stating, “I think [the
   Government] makes a good point about the type of offense and how – what
   an upper level he was in this offense So I’m going to run the sentence
   consecutively.” It then revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to
   a consecutive term of 24 months.
          Arellano challenges the revocation sentence, 1 asserting that the
   district court improperly considered factors outlined in 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a)(2)(A). He bases this argument on the statement above, as well as
   statements made during the sentencing related to Arellano’s guilty plea for
   conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
          1
            Because Arellano makes no argument pertaining to his 240-month sentence, he
   has abandoned any claim relating to that sentence. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d
   251, 254–55 (5th Cir. 2010).

                                                2
Case: 23-10106      Document: 00516959240          Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                       23-10106
                                   c/w No. 23-10107

          Because Arellano did not object to the revocation sentence before the
   district court, review is for plain error. Arellano must show that: “(1) the
   district court erred, (2) the error was clear or obvious, (3) the error affected
   his substantial rights, and (4) this court should exercise its discretion to
   correct the error because the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
   public reputation of judicial proceedings.” In re Deepwater Horizon, 824 F.3d
   571, 583 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Puckett v. U.S., 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)).
          Arellano fails to make this showing. The district court’s comments
   do not show that it considered retribution in imposing the sentence
   consecutively. See U.S. v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining
   that district courts may not consider retribution for revocation sentences).
   However, district courts may consider the defendant’s history and
   characteristics, the need to deter the defendant from future criminal activity,
   and the need to protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (citing 18 U.S.C.
   3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), & (a)(2)(C)). The district court’s comments were
   made in response to the Government’s argument about Arellano’s escalating
   conduct while on supervised release, and do not reference punishment or
   retribution. Rather, they accord with the permitted considerations. Thus,
   Arellano fails to demonstrate plain error. In re Deepwater Horizon, 824 at 583.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3