USA v. Carlos Gonzalez-Aguirre

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-40351 Affirmed ] Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 02/03/2015 for Appellant Carlos Gonzalez-Aguirre [14-40351]

Case: 14-40351

Document: 00512900534

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/13/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-40351
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
January 13, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
CARLOS GONZALEZ-AGUIRRE,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:14-CR-168-1
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Carlos Gonzalez-Aguirre (Gonzalez) appeals the 20-month sentence he
received upon revocation of his supervised release. For the first time on appeal,
he contends that his sentence was procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. We review these newly raised arguments for plain error only.
See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009).

To

establish plain error, Gonzalez must show a forfeited error that is clear or

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 14-40351

Document: 00512900534

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/13/2015

No. 14-40351
obvious and that 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. See Puckett,
556 U.S. at 135.
Gonzalez complains that the district court did not adequately explain the
reasons for its sentence, specifically failing to explain its rejection of his
mitigation argument and to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He
further contends that the district court unreasonably imposed his revocation
sentence consecutively to the sentence he received in his new illegal reentry
case. He fails to show any reversible plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
Because the revocation sentence fell within the advisory guidelines
range, little additional explanation was required. See United States v. Mares,
402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court listened to and specifically
rejected as incredible Gonzalez’s argument in mitigation; it also referenced his
lengthy criminal history, including his multiple illegal reentries. Its comments
at sentencing indicate that it implicitly considered the permissible § 3553(a)
factors. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 262-65. Moreover, even if error is assumed,
Gonzalez cannot show that his substantial rights were affected or that any
error seriously affected the public reputation of the proceedings as nothing in
the record suggests that a more thorough explanation would have resulted in
a lesser sentence. See id. at 264-65.
Additionally, Gonzalez has not shown that the consecutive nature of his
sentence renders it substantively unreasonable. The district court had the
discretion to run his sentences consecutively. See id. at 260-61. Because the
revocation sentence both fell within the advisory range and was consistent
with the Guidelines’ policy regarding consecutive sentences, it is entitled to a

2

Case: 14-40351

Document: 00512900534

Page: 3

Date Filed: 01/13/2015

No. 14-40351
presumption of reasonableness. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) and (b)(1), 7B1.3; see
also United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006). Gonzalez’s
argument that a consecutive revocation sentence amounts to “an egregious
punishment” fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his
sentence. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

3