United States v. Campos ( 2022 )

Case: 21-10627 Document: 00516209717 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 21, 2022
No. 21-10627 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Oscar Geovanny Campos,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-18-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Oscar Geovanny Campos appeals the 37-month prison term imposed
upon his conviction for illegal reentry. He concedes that the district court
provided adequate reasons to support the prison term but asserts that the
court was further obligated under Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007),
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10627 Document: 00516209717 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2022
No. 21-10627
to specifically address his nonfrivolous arguments for a sentence of 30
months. We review this forfeited objection for plain error. See United States
v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207(2021).
The record as a whole reflects that the district court considered
Campos’s arguments concerning his reasons for returning to the United
States and his plan to remain in El Salvador and work in construction upon
his release from prison. The court’s stated explanation for the within-
guidelines sentence provided a reasoned basis for it. Accordingly, the court
did not err by failing to reference each of Campos’s arguments. See Rita, 551
U.S. at 343-45, 356, 358-59; Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 584, 586-87 & nn.4-
6; United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2013). The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED as
MOOT. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969). In the interest of judicial economy, the alternative motion for an
extension of time to file a brief on the merits is DENIED as MOOT.
2