Case: 14-20009 Document: 00512859756 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-20009
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 5, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JORGE GOMEZ-REYES, also known as Jorge Pedro Gomez, also known as
Jorge Gomez, also known as Jorge Gomez Reyes, also known as Aurelio Nicolas
Tapia, also known as Aurelio N. Tapia, also known as Aurelio Tapia-Nicolas,
also known as Aurelio Tapia Nicolas,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-543-1
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jorge Gomez-Reyes appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction for
illegal reentry by a previously deported alien after a felony conviction. The
district court sentenced him below the advisory guidelines range to 18 months
of imprisonment, followed by one year of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-20009 Document: 00512859756 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2014
No. 14-20009
Gomez-Reyes argues that resentencing is appropriate because the
district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence. He
asserts that the district court did not address his mitigation arguments
concerning his familial circumstances and the overrepresentation of his
criminal history and made no mention of the sentencing factors under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) apart from the Sentencing Guidelines.
A sentencing court commits significant procedural error where it fails to
adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). “The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate
court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis
for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007); accord United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d 289,
294 (5th Cir. 2013). The adequacy of the district court’s statements are
considered in the context of the sentencing proceeding as a whole. Diaz
Sanchez, 714 F.3d at 294.
Because Gomez-Reyes did not object to the district court’s explanation of
the sentence, plain error review applies to his argument. See United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error,
Gomez-Reyes 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, we have the discretion to correct the error
but will do so only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. Gomez-Reyes acknowledges that
plain error review applies pursuant to circuit precedent but wishes to preserve
for further review the question whether a defendant must specifically object to
the adequacy of the explanation of a sentence in order to avoid plain-error
review of the issue on appeal.
2
Case: 14-20009 Document: 00512859756 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/05/2014
No. 14-20009
The record reflects that the district court listened to and considered
Gomez-Reyes’s arguments for a lesser sentence. Based on its statements
during the sentencing hearing, the district court sufficiently discharged its
obligation to explain its reasons for the sentence. See Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d
at 294-95. Furthermore, to show that an error affected his substantial rights,
Gomez-Reyes must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of the
proceeding would have been different but for the error. See Mondragon-
Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364. However, he does not explain why a more robust
discussion by the district court would have resulted in a lesser sentence. Thus,
he has also failed to show an effect on his substantial rights for purposes of
plain error review. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 365.
AFFIRMED.
3