United States v. Faustino Maldonado

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Faustino Maldonado

533 F. App'x 476

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 2013

Docket12-41084

StatusUnpublished

This text of 533 F. App'x 476 (United States v. Faustino Maldonado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Faustino Maldonado, 533 F. App'x 476 (5th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Faustino Maldonado was convicted on one charge of illegal reentry into the United States and was *477 sentenced to serve 70 months in prison and a one-year term of supervised release. Maldonado contends on appeal that the district court plainly erred when it presumed that his guidelines sentencing range was reasonable and relied on this presumption to deny his request based on cultural assimilation, for a sentence below the guidelines range.

As Maldonado acknowledges, we consider this claim under the plain error standard because it was not presented to the district court. See United States v. King, 541 F.3d 1143, 1144 (5th Cir.2008). To meet this standard, Maldonado must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Even if he makes this showing, we will only exercise our discretion to correct the error if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Our review of the record shows that the district court acted properly by acknowledging that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory and by considering the factors given in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 before imposing the sentence it found appropriate under the facts of this particular case. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Nothing in the district court’s remarks shows that it required Maldonado to overcome a presumption that the guidelines range was reasonable or refused to grant the requested variance absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. See King, 541 F.3d at 1145. As Maldonado has not shown plain error concerning his sentence, the sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Faustino Maldonado was convicted on one charge of illegal reentry into the United States and was *477 sentenced to serve 70 months in prison and a one-year term of supervised release. Maldonado contends on appeal that the district court plainly erred when it presumed that his guidelines sentencing range was reasonable and relied on this presumption to deny his request based on cultural assimilation, for a sentence below the guidelines range.

As Maldonado acknowledges, we consider this claim under the plain error standard because it was not presented to the district court. See United States v. King, 541 F.3d 1143, 1144 (5th Cir.2008). To meet this standard, Maldonado must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Even if he makes this showing, we will only exercise our discretion to correct the error if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Our review of the record shows that the district court acted properly by acknowledging that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory and by considering the factors given in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 before imposing the sentence it found appropriate under the facts of this particular case. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Nothing in the district court’s remarks shows that it required Maldonado to overcome a presumption that the guidelines range was reasonable or refused to grant the requested variance absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. See King, 541 F.3d at 1145. As Maldonado has not shown plain error concerning his sentence, the sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 F. App'x 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-faustino-maldonado-ca5-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack