United States v. Tomas Moreno-Turrubiates

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 23, 2020
• Docket: 20-40022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-40021 Document: 00515500978 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 20-40021 FILED Summary Calendar July 23, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Consolidated with 20-40022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TOMAS MORENO-TURRUBIATES, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19-CR-498-1 USDC No. 1:15-CR-533-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Tomas Moreno-Turrubiates appeals the 52-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal. He also appeals the revocation of his term of supervised release that was imposed in connection with his prior conviction for illegal reentry. However, Moreno- Turrubiates does not brief any argument as to his revocation or revocation

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 20-40021 Document: 00515500978 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2020

No. 20-40021 c/w No. 20-40022 sentence and, accordingly, has abandoned any related claim. See United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreno-Turrubiates contends that the district court’s explanation for its choice of sentence was inadequate in light of his arguments for a variance. We review this argument under the plain error standard because Moreno- Turrubiates did not raise this issue in the district court. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009). The explanation given by the district court, though brief, was enough to satisfy us that the court heard Moreno-Turrubiates’s arguments and plea for leniency and that it had “a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Moreno-Turrubiates has not shown any procedural error, let alone plain procedural error. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.