IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-20183
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DOROTEO MORA-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CR-H-94-0210
- - - - - - - - - -
December 21, 1995
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Doroteo Mora-Hernandez appeals his conviction of illegal
reentry after deportation. Mora-Hernandez contends solely that
the district court impermissibly relied on his criminal past to
sentence him to 71 months' imprisonment, the highest sentence in
his guideline sentencing range, after considering his prior
criminal convictions to calculate his criminal history score.
Mora-Hernandez did not object to the district court's
reasons for the imposition of a 71-month term of imprisonment.
*
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of
opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of
well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the
public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that
Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
No. 95-20183
-2-
Mora-Hernandez may prevail only if the district court committed
plain error. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64
(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995);
FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b). The district court did not commit plain
error.
First, because Mora-Hernandez's sentencing range was less
than 24 months, the district court need not have offered any
reason for choosing any particular sentence in the sentencing
range. United States v. Matovsky, 935 F.2d 719, 721 (5th Cir.
1991). Second, the reason offered by the district court was not
an illegal consideration or a misapplication of the sentencing
guidelines. See United States v. Webb, 950 F.2d 226, 231-32 (5th
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 961 (1992).
AFFIRMED.