United States v. Ramirez-Ortega

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 22-11053
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-11053 Document: 00516878668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-11053 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ August 30, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Santos David Ramirez-Ortega,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CR-75-1 ______________________________

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Santos David Ramirez-Ortega pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced Ramirez-Ortega to the within-guidelines, statutory maximum sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Ramirez-Ortega argues that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it failed to

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-11053 Document: 00516878668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2023

No. 22-11053

respond to his nonfrivolous arguments for the requested bottom-of- guidelines sentence. Because Ramirez-Ortega did not object to his sentence on this basis, we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon- Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish plain error, Ramirez-Ortega must show that the district court committed a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Even if Ramirez-Ortega is able to demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights, we may exercise our discretion to correct the error only if that error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (alteration in original) (quotation and citation omitted). To the extent Ramirez-Ortega encourages us to apply a different standard of review and reconsider our circuit precedent in light of Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020), we decline that invitation, just as we did in United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 586 (5th Cir. 2021). Ramirez-Ortega has failed to show that the district court committed significant procedural error, let alone show that any purported error affected his substantial rights. See Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 586–87; Mondragon- Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361, 364–65. The district court was not required to address Ramirez-Ortega’s arguments explicitly or to “provide specific reasons for rejecting [his] arguments.” United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2013); see Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 587. The record demonstrates that the district court considered the facts of the case and Ramirez-Ortega’s personal circumstances, properly addressed all relevant sentencing factors, and adequately articulated its “reasoned basis” for the within-guidelines sentence. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007); see Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 586–87. AFFIRMED.