Case: 13-50151 Document: 00512501363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-50151 FILED
Summary Calendar January 15, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CANDIDA ORTIZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Cons. w/ No. 13-50152
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CANDIDA CAROLINA ORTIZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:12-CR-2828-1
USDC No. 3:12-CR-387-1
Case: 13-50151 Document: 00512501363 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2014
No. 13-50151
c/w No. 13-50152
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Candida Ortiz was convicted of importing marijuana, importing heroin,
and possessing with intent to distribute heroin. She now challenges her
sentence as unreasonable. Under Ortiz’s view, her sentence is greater than
necessary to achieve the aims of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the below-
guidelines sentence failed to take into account her history and characteristics,
namely, her difficult past and history of drug abuse.
Because Ortiz did not object to her sentence, we review her argument for
plain error only. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.
2007). Under this standard, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is
clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009). If she makes such a showing, this court
has the discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects
the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. This
standard has not been met.
Insofar as Ortiz argues that the district court erred by not according
enough weight to certain sentencing factors, this argument amounts to no more
than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of these factors, which
shows no error in connection with the sentence imposed. See United States v.
Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent she contends that this
court should reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, we decline to do so. See United
States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (“The fact that the appellate court might
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
2
Case: 13-50151 Document: 00512501363 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/15/2014
No. 13-50151
c/w No. 13-50152
reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is
insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.”). The judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
3