United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 12, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41146
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERTO GUZMAN RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CR-1315-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roberto Guzman Rodriguez was sentenced to an 18-month term
of imprisonment following the revocation of a term of supervised
release imposed as part of a 2001 sentence for possession of
marijuana with intent to distribute. Rodriguez argues on appeal
that his sentence constitutes plain error because it was based on
an incorrect calculation of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
and further argues that the district court plainly erred by not
specifically addressing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors during
the sentencing hearing.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41146
-2-
To establish reversible plain error, Rodriguez must identify
a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). Even if
Rodriguez establishes these factors, we retain the discretion
whether to correct the error and will generally do so only if the
error “affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.” United States v. Castillo, 386 F.3d 632,
636 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1029 (2004).
Although it is undisputed that Rodriguez’s sentence is the
result of a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, he has
failed to show that the error affected his substantial rights.
Rodriguez’s revocation sentence was within the three-year
statutory maximum sentence authorized upon revocation. See
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii).
The district court determined that Rodriguez testified
falsely at the sentencing hearing and that his self-serving
testimony constituted perjury and obstruction of justice. It is
implicit from the court’s comments at the sentencing hearing that
the court considered the § 3553(a) factors in arriving at an
appropriate sentence. § 3553(a); see United States v. Gonzalez,
250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001). Rodriguez has therefore
failed to demonstrate that his revocation sentence constitutes
reversible plain error. Moreover, because the 24-month sentence
is within the statutory maximum, it was not unreasonable. United
States v. Boykin, No. 05-50704, 2006 WL 616031 at *1 (5th Cir.),
No. 05-41146
-3-
cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 153 (U.S. Oct. 02, 2006) (unpublished).
AFFIRMED.