United States v. Humberto Bobadilla-Rodriguez

Case: 11-51260 Document: 00512293855 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
July 2, 2013
No. 11-51260
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

HUMBERTO BOBADILLA-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:10-CR-1706-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Humberto Bobadilla-Rodriguez (Bobadilla) appeals his sentence following
his guilty plea conviction to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
He challenges the district court’s imposition of a five-year period of ineligibility
for federal benefits, arguing that his offense was not a distribution offense for
purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 862.
As Bobadilla concedes, because he did not object to the five-year denial of
federal benefits in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-51260 Document: 00512293855 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2013

No. 11-51260

States v. Silva-de Hoyos, 702 F.3d 843, 848 (5th Cir. 2012). To show plain error,
Bobadilla must demonstrate (1) that there was an error, (2) that it was clear or
obvious, and (3) that it affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that 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.
Because Bobadilla’s offense of possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute was not an offense consisting of the distribution of controlled
substances under § 862(a), the district court erred in imposing the five-year
ineligibility period, that error was plain, and it affected Bobadilla’s substantial
rights. See Silva-de Hoyos, 702 F.3d at 849-50. Bobadilla contends that the
error affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings
because it results in a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum. Bobadilla
has not, however, identified any federal benefit for which he is eligible or might
be eligible during the five-year ineligibility period imposed by the district court.
See id. at 850. Because the district court’s error did not seriously affect the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, the district
court’s judgment is affirmed. See id.
AFFIRMED.