Case: 12-41359 Document: 00512332022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 12-41359 August 5, 2013
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DANIEL GONZALEZ-PEREZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No.5:10-CR-2468-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Daniel Gonzalez-Perez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon the
revocation of his supervised release. Relying on United States v. Miller, 634
F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011), he contends that the district court procedurally
erred by considering sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) in
determining his sentence.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 12-41359 Document: 00512332022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2013
No. 12-41359
As Gonzalez-Perez acknowledges, our review is for plain error. See
United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Although the
probation officer recommended that the district court sentence Gonzalez-Perez
to “a term of incarceration which would reflect the seriousness of his
noncompliant behavior, promote respect for the law and provide just
punishment for the violations,” we do not impute that recommendation to the
district court. See United States v. Culbertson, 712 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir.
2013) (“[t]he district court’s words are the best evidence of why it did what it
did.”).
The district court did not mention the need for punishment but twice
noted Gonzalez-Perez’s total disregard of federal and state laws. Although this
is arguably similar to the language in Miller, we have not addressed whether
consideration of a defendant’s total disregard for state and federal laws is
tantamount to consideration of the need for the sentence imposed to promote
respect for the law. Accordingly, Gonzalez-Perez has not shown clear or
obvious error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
Nor has he shown that the alleged error affected his substantial rights.
The record shows that the district court considered the following in
determining Gonzalez-Perez’s revocation sentence: Gonzalez-Perez’s violations
of four conditions of his supervised release; the recommended guidelines range
of 6 to 12 months, the 24-month statutory maximum range, and the 18-month
sentence Gonzalez-Perez requested in lieu of a 24-month sentence; Gonzalez-
Perez’s previous conviction involving forged payroll checks, and his new offense
of attempting to pass a forged payroll check; Gonzalez-Perez’s age; and the
number of his illegal reentries and his characterization of these as mere
mistakes. This record does not unambiguously indicate that, but for the
district court’s consideration of impermissible sentencing factors, there is a
2
Case: 12-41359 Document: 00512332022 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2013
No. 12-41359
reasonable probability that Gonzalez-Perez would have received a lower
sentence. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643,
647 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
3