Case: 13-10764 Document: 00512604234 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-10764 April 22, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSE JIMENEZ CARDENAS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-21-1
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Jimenez Cardenas appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for illegal presence in the United States after removal.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, he challenges the district
court’s imposition of a two-year term of supervised release, asserting that the
district court failed to make a particularized finding that supervised release
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-10764 Document: 00512604234 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2014
No. 13-10764
would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection in his case. See
U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 5D1.1(c).
As he concedes, Cardenas did not raise his arguments in the district
court; thus, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Dominguez-
Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012). To demonstrate plain error,
he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his
substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If
he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but
only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. See id. An error affects the defendant’s substantial rights if it
“affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” See id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
In the instant case, the district court specifically explained that a term
of supervised release would “provide an added measure of deterrence and
protection based on the facts and circumstances of this case” and concluded
that the sentence imposed adequately addressed the sentencing factors of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). Therefore, we conclude that Cardenas has not shown that
the district court committed clear or obvious error, if any. See Dominguez-
Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 330. Even if the district court did err, in light of his
repeated illegal reentries and criminal record, Cardenas cannot show that his
substantial rights were affected. See United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710
F.3d 601, 607 (5th Cir. 2013). In addition, nothing in the record suggests that
the district court would not have imposed a period of supervised release if it
had given a more thorough explanation of its reasons. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at
135.
As Cardenas has failed to show reversible plain error, the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
2