Case: 21-50713 Document: 00516269402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-50713 April 6, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Idania Renteria,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-244-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Idania Renteria, federal prisoner # 80316-380, appeals the 14-month
sentence, which was within the guidelines range, that was imposed on the
revocation of her supervised release. She argues that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable because it was ordered to be served consecutively
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50713 Document: 00516269402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
No. 21-50713
to the 37-month sentence she received for the illegal reentry conviction that
formed the basis for the revocation of her supervised release. Renteria asserts
that because she will likely face administrative detention for immigration
proceedings, she will serve three separate periods of incarceration, rendering
her revocation sentence multiplicitous.
We review Renteria’s revocation sentence to determine if it is
“plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.
2011). We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse
of discretion, examining the totality of the circumstances. United States v.
Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2018).
Renteria’s reliance on United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168 (5th Cir.
2009), is misplaced. In Willis, the defendant faced two revocation sentences
for what should have been one underlying conviction. Id. at 170. Renteria
faces only one revocation sentence for one conviction. Separate detention
flowing from the civil immigration consequences of her conduct does not
make the criminal sentence multiplicitous.
Nor has Renteria shown that when it imposed the revocation
sentence, the district court failed to account for a factor that should have
received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or
improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the
sentencing factors. See United States v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 827 (2020); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
AFFIRMED.
2