United States v. Jesus Cantu-Rosas

581 F. App'x 363
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 2, 2014
Docket13-50948
StatusUnpublished

This text of 581 F. App'x 363 (United States v. Jesus Cantu-Rosas) 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. Jesus Cantu-Rosas, 581 F. App'x 363 (5th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jesus Alonso Cantu-Rosas appeals the consecutive 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release following his conviction and 82-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Cantu-Rosas argues that the district court committed significant procedural error by failing to recognize its authority to order that his revocation sentence run partially concurrent with the 82-month drug sentence.

Cantu-Rosas challenges the district court’s incorrect statement regarding its authority to impose a partially concurrent sentence for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Kirklin, 701 F.3d 177, 178-79 (5th Cir.2012). The Government concedes that the district court committed a clear and obvious error by stating that it was statutorily barred from imposing a partially concurrent revocation sentence. See United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 91-93 (5th Cir.1994); 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c).

However, Cantu-Rosas cannot show that his substantial rights were affected because he does not demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have received a lesser sentence but for the error. See United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir.2010). Nor does he demonstrate that we should exercise discretion to remand because the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of his judicial proceedings. See Kirklin, 701 F.3d at 180; United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir.2008). Accordingly, the judgment of 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Related

United States v. Lopez-Velasquez
526 F.3d 804 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Davis
602 F.3d 643 (Fifth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. James William Mathena
23 F.3d 87 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Samuel Kirklin
701 F.3d 177 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
581 F. App'x 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jesus-cantu-rosas-ca5-2014.