United States v. Macias-Fuentes

Opinion

Case: 25-10223 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-10223

consolidated with FILED No. 25-10226 October 9, 2025 _____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Miguel Angel Macias-Fuentes,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:13-CR-19-1, 4:24-CR-198-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Miguel Angel Macias-Fuentes pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In addition, the district court revoked his supervised release and

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-10223 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2025

25-10223

c/w No. 25-10226

sentenced him to a consecutive term of 12 months in prison. He now appeals, challenging only the 60-month sentence.

Specifically, Macias-Fuentes argues that the district court erred when it calculated the applicable departure range under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(4)(A) as encompassing 60 months. As Macias-Fuentes concedes, our review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Where the district court elects to depart pursuant to § 4A1.3(a)(1), “it is to follow the method for calculating the extent of the departure set forth in §§ 4A1.3(a)(4)(A) and (B).” United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 723 (5th Cir. 2007). Although the court did not expressly state it was applying § 4A1.3(a)(4)(B) after departing to Criminal History Category VI, it concluded that a sentence of 60 months was warranted based on Macias- Fuentes’s extensive criminal history. See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 348 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, any error was not clear or obvious. See id. But even if it were, any error did not affect his substantial rights given the district court’s detailed explanation of its reasons for selecting the 60- month sentence. See United States v. Tapia, 946 F.3d 729, 734 (5th Cir. 2020).

Macias-Fuentes also contends that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment when it statutorily enhanced his sentence based on the fact of a prior conviction that was never alleged in the indictment. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he raises the issue for potential further review. Because the issue is foreclosed, we reject Macias-Fuentes’s argument. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019).

Finally, he has abandoned any challenge to the revocation of his supervised release. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2010).

3

Case: 25-10223 Document: 57-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/09/2025

25-10223

c/w No. 25-10226

Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.