USA v. Manuel Velasquez-Ortiz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41394 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: JWE , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 08/18/2017 for Appellant Manuel Fabian Velasquez-Ortiz [16-41394]

Case: 16-41394

Document: 00514092868

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/28/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 16-41394
Summary Calendar

FILED
July 28, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MANUEL FABIAN VELASQUEZ-ORTIZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:15-CR-1477-1
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Manuel Fabian Velasquez-Ortiz pleaded guilty to reentry of a deported
alien.

The

presentence

report

(PSR)

calculated

Velasquez-Ortiz’s

recommended sentencing range based, in relevant part, on two controlled
substance convictions from 1991. Velasquez-Ortiz argues that the district
court erred in finding that his parole had been revoked and that he had been

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-41394

Document: 00514092868

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/28/2017

No. 16-41394
incarcerated within 15 years of the commencement of the current offense for
the 1991 convictions.
We review a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de
novo and its factual findings for clear error.

United States v. Cisneros-

Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Plain error review applies where
the defendant fails to object in the district court. Puckett v. United States, 556
U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361
(5th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Velasquez-Ortiz’s assertions, he did not object to
the district court’s factual finding or its reliance on the PSR to determine that
his parole had been revoked with respect to the 1991 convictions. See United
States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009).
Velasquez-Ortiz has pointed to no rebuttal evidence showing that the
district court erred in adopting the facts contained in the PSR. See United
States v. Floyd, 343 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. GomezAlvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 796-797 (5th Cir. 2015). Velasquez-Ortiz admitted that
he was incarcerated in 2013 related to the 1991 convictions. Additionally, the
Government, without objection, has supplemented the record with documents
showing that Velasquez-Ortiz’s parole from the 1991 convictions was revoked
and that he was incarcerated for those convictions within 15 years of the
commencement of the current offense. Velasquez-Ortiz has failed to show any
error, clear or plain, by the district court.
AFFIRMED.

2