United States v. Felix-Samaniego

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 12, 2025
• Docket: 24-10284
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-10283 Document: 83-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10283 consolidated with FILED No. 24-10284 March 12, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce _____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Pablo Jacobo Felix-Samaniego,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC Nos. 5:19-CR-114-1, 5:23-CR-96-1 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Pablo Jacobo Felix-Samaniego appeals his within-guidelines sentence of eight months of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of a prior term of supervised release. He also appeals a separate within-guidelines sentence of 48 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10283 Document: 83-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2025

24-10283 c/w No. 24-10284

district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Felix-Samaniego contends that the district court imposed substantively unreasonable sentences by failing to account for a factor that should have received significant weight. Because Felix-Samaniego’s claim cannot succeed even under the more lenient standard of review, see United States v. Burney, 992 F.3d 398, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2021), this court can pretermit any issues concerning whether he properly preserved his claim in the district court, see United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008). Sentences, as here, that are within the advisory guidelines range are presumed to be substantively reasonable. See United States v. Mondragon- Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2020) (regarding revocation sentences). Felix-Samaniego fails to rebut that presumption by showing that his sentences do not account for a factor that should have received significant weight. See United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299, 313-14 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.