IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40127
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FAUSTINO MARGARITO TRINIDAD-SALINAS,
also known as Santos Benavides Gonzalez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-01-CR-603-1
--------------------
January 29, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Faustino Margarito Trinidad-Salinas appeals the 20-month
sentence imposed by the district court following his entry of a
plea of guilty to a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b) for
being found illegally in the United States subsequent to
deportation and a conviction for an aggravated felony.
Trinidad-Salinas contends that his attorney provided
ineffective assistance because counsel did not challenge the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-40127
-2-
addition of one point to his criminal history score for each of
two state convictions for driving with excessive blood alcohol
levels. Trinidad-Salinas has not briefed this issue
sufficiently. See United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d
1093, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991). Trinidad-Salinas does not explain
why the criminal history was incorrect, he does not provide
citations to the record or to other information to show that the
criminal history is incorrect, and he does not indicate what
counsel should have done. Further, Trinidad-Salinas cannot
establish ineffective assistance because he cannot show
prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 697
(1984). Even if the district court had subtracted two points for
the challenged convictions, Trinidad-Salinas would have had a
criminal history score of four points, which would have resulted
in the same criminal history category III.
Trinidad-Salinas contends that the Government breached the
plea agreement because it did not make a recommendation at
sentencing that he receive a sentence at the low end of the
applicable Sentencing Guideline range. Because Trinidad-Salinas
did not object at sentencing to the Government’s lack of such a
recommendation, our review of the issue is for plain error only.
United States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001). We
will not exercise our discretion to correct a forfeited error
unless the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
No. 02-40127
-3-
The district court was aware of the plea agreement’s terms
and imposed sentence in compliance with the agreement. The
sentencing recommendation was incorporated in the presentence
report. See Reeves, 255 F.3d at 210. Trinidad has not
demonstrated a breach or that any error that may have occurred
seriously affected the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.” Reeves, 255 F.3d at 210. The judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.