Court Opinion

ID: 9786670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:00:31.421734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:11.797216
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11053        Document: 00516878668             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-11053
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 30, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Santos David Ramirez-Ortega,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-75-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Santos David Ramirez-Ortega pled guilty to illegal reentry after
   deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced
   Ramirez-Ortega to the within-guidelines, statutory maximum sentence of 24
   months of imprisonment. On appeal, Ramirez-Ortega argues that the district
   court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it failed to

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11053      Document: 00516878668           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                     No. 22-11053

   respond to his nonfrivolous arguments for the requested bottom-of-
   guidelines sentence. Because Ramirez-Ortega did not object to his sentence
   on this basis, we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-
   Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish plain error,
   Ramirez-Ortega must show that the district court committed a clear or
   obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States,
   556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Even if Ramirez-Ortega is able to demonstrate that
   the error affected his substantial rights, we may exercise our discretion to
   correct the error only if that error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity
   or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (alteration in original)
   (quotation and citation omitted). To the extent Ramirez-Ortega encourages
   us to apply a different standard of review and reconsider our circuit precedent
   in light of Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020), we
   decline that invitation, just as we did in United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986
   F.3d 583, 586 (5th Cir. 2021).
          Ramirez-Ortega has failed to show that the district court committed
   significant procedural error, let alone show that any purported error affected
   his substantial rights. See Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 586–87; Mondragon-
   Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361, 364–65. The district court was not required to
   address Ramirez-Ortega’s arguments explicitly or to “provide specific
   reasons for rejecting [his] arguments.” United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714
   F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2013); see Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 587. The record
   demonstrates that the district court considered the facts of the case and
   Ramirez-Ortega’s personal circumstances, properly addressed all relevant
   sentencing factors, and adequately articulated its “reasoned basis” for the
   within-guidelines sentence. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007);
   see Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 586–87.
                                                                   AFFIRMED.

                                          2