Court Opinion

ID: 9890598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 18:01:15.671179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:35.770041
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20147         Document: 00516930156             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/13/2023

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

                                       No. 23-20147
                                                                              FILED
                                                                        October 13, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Kyrie Castillo,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:21-CR-86-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Kyrie Castillo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
   conviction for aiding and abetting the damage or destruction, by means of
   fire, any building receiving federal financial assistance. On appeal, he makes
   two procedural challenges to his sentence. First, he argues that the district
   court procedurally erred by applying an incorrect guidelines range. In the
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20147        Document: 00516930156             Page: 2      Date Filed: 10/13/2023

                                         No. 23-20147

   alternative, Castillo argues that the district court failed to adequately explain
   its reason for an upward variance as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c).
   Although he characterizes the latter claim as a challenge to the substantive
   reasonableness of his sentence, his argument constitutes a procedural
   objection. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
           Because Castillo failed to object about the guidelines range at
   sentencing, review is for plain error. See United States v. Peterson, 977 F.3d
   381, 392 (5th Cir. 2020). To establish plain error, the defendant must show a
   forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights. See
   Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing,
   this court has the discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it
   “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation
   omitted).
           Here, Castillo fails to show that the district court actually applied an
   incorrect guidelines range. Although he highlights ambiguity in the
   sentencing transcript, in light of the record as a whole, he fails to demonstrate
   any error, much less clear or obvious error.1 See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
           AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           1
             Castillo’s alternative argument—that the district court failed to adequately
   explain its reason for an upward variance—is also rejected. The record plainly
   demonstrates that the district court judge provided a full explanation of the sentence and
   the reasons for it.

                                               2