Case: 13-51157 Document: 00512881247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-51157 FILED
Summary Calendar December 23, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FELIPE SAUCEDO, III,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:08-CR-653-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Felipe Saucedo, III, has appealed the district court’s judgment revoking
his supervised release and sentencing him to a 24-month term of
imprisonment. He contends that the sentence imposed was greater than
necessary to fulfill the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and was,
therefore, unreasonable.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-51157 Document: 00512881247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2014
No. 13-51157
Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under a “plainly
unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.
2011). However, because no objection was made at the revocation hearing, this
court’s review of Saucedo’s revocation sentence is limited to plain error. See
United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain
error, Saucedo 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.
Saucedo does not dispute that the district court imposed a statutory
maximum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court considered the
guidelines policy statements and appropriate statutory sentencing factors. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B); United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 90-93
(5th Cir. 1994). No error, plain or otherwise, has been identified. The
judgment is AFFIRMED.
2