Court Opinion

ID: 9890698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-14 00:00:29.703158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:35.488252
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50133        Document: 00516931134             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50133
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               October 13, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jose Luis Rodriguez-Martinez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:22-CR-120-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jose Luis Rodriguez-Martinez appeals the above-guidelines sentence
   imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry into the United States
   after removal. He argues that his 33-month sentence as an upward variance
   is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed adequately to
   explain the sentence. Rodriguez-Martinez further argues that his sentence is

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50133       Document: 00516931134           Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/13/2023

                                      No. 23-50133

   substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary given the
   nature of his offense and that his criminal history did not justify the sentence
   imposed.
          Because Rodriguez-Martinez failed to object to the procedural and
   substantive reasonableness of his sentence and did not also advocate for a
   lower sentence, we review his sentence only for plain error. See United States
   v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); cf. Holguin-
   Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764–67 (2020). To establish plain
   error, Rodriguez-Martinez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious
   and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
   135 (2009). If he makes this showing, we have the discretion to remedy the
   error but will do so only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
   reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets,
   and citation omitted).
          Contrary to Rodriguez-Martinez’s assertions, the record reflects that
   the district court gave specific reasons for the sentence, emphasizing his
   criminal history. Accordingly, Rodriguez-Martinez has not shown that the
   district court’s explanation of his sentence was inadequate, plainly or
   otherwise. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007); United States v.
   Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Finally, a district court has the discretion to determine that the
   advisory guidelines range gives too much or too little weight to one or more
   factors and may conclude that a within-guidelines sentence would be
   insufficient to serve the objectives of sentencing. See United States v.
   Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809–11 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, the record reflects that
   the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determined
   that, due to Rodriguez-Martinez’s numerous prior felony offenses, an above-
   guidelines sentence was necessary to impose a just sentence, to deter future

                                            2
Case: 23-50133      Document: 00516931134          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/13/2023

                                    No. 23-50133

   criminal conduct, to promote respect for the law, and to protect the public.
   We have affirmed sentences well above the guidelines range in illegal reentry
   cases where the defendant had prior felony convictions. See, e.g., United
   States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,
   Rodriguez-Martinez’s substantive reasonableness argument fails to show
   that the district court abused its discretion, plainly or otherwise. See United
   States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008).
                                                                  AFFIRMED.

                                          3