United States v. Mayra Godines-Alvarez , 633 F. App'x 283 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-20690      Document: 00513380390         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/15/2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-20690
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    February 15, 2016
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    MAYRA GODINES-ALVAREZ, also known as Mayra Betancourt,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:13-CR-748-1
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Mayra Godines-Alvarez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
    intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (Count One) and
    aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
    methamphetamine (Count Two, Count Three, and Count Four). The district
    court sentenced Godines-Alvarez to 168 months in prison on each count, to be
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-20690     Document: 00513380390      Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/15/2016
    No. 14-20690
    served concurrently. The district court also sentenced her to a three-year term
    of supervised release on each count, to be served concurrently.
    Godines-Alvarez argues that the district court plainly erred by applying
    a presumption of reasonableness to the guidelines sentencing range;
    determining the amount of drugs attributable to her based on her relevant
    conduct; finding that a sufficient factual basis existed to support her guilty
    plea; accepting an uninformed guilty plea; and imposing multiplicitous
    sentences.
    As Godines-Alvarez concedes, review is limited to plain error because she
    failed to raise these arguments in the district court. See Puckett v. United
    States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135 (2009). To meet this standard, Godines-Alvarez must
    show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights.
    
    Id.
     Even if this showing is made, this court will exercise its discretion to correct
    the error only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public
    reputation of judicial proceedings.” 
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted).
    Godines-Alvarez fails to show that the district court plainly erred by
    applying a presumption of reasonableness to the guidelines range because the
    district court neither discussed the presumption of reasonableness nor
    mandated that she demonstrate extraordinary circumstances in order to
    receive a variance. See United States v. King, 
    541 F.3d 1143
    , 1145 (5th Cir.
    2008). She also does not demonstrate that the district court plainly erred in
    determining the amount of drugs attributable to her because she did not
    present any rebuttal evidence showing that the amount attributed to her in
    the presentence report was materially inaccurate or untrue. See United States
    v. Vital, 
    68 F.3d 114
    , 120 (5th Cir. 1995); Puckett, 
    556 U.S. at 135
    . In addition,
    Godines-Alvarez fails to establish that the district court plainly erred by
    2
    Case: 14-20690    Document: 00513380390     Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/15/2016
    No. 14-20690
    finding that a sufficient factual basis existed to support her guilty plea for
    Count Two, Count Three, and Count Four because she admitted that she
    participated in the conspiracy by arranging the logistics and deliveries of the
    methamphetamine. See United States v. Hildenbrand, 
    527 F.3d 466
    , 474-75
    (5th Cir. 2008); Puckett, 
    556 U.S. at 135
    . She also does not show that the
    district court plainly erred by accepting an uninformed guilty plea because a
    reasonable person would have believed that she understood the nature of the
    charges. See United States v. Reyes, 
    300 F.3d 555
    , 559 (5th Cir. 2002). Finally,
    Godines-Alvarez fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by imposing
    multiplicitous sentences because each of the aiding and abetting counts related
    to separate and distinct acts and because the conspiracy count has different
    elements of proof than the aiding and abetting counts. See United States v.
    Planck, 
    493 F.3d 501
    , 503 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Coward, 
    595 F.2d 1023
    , 1029 (5th Cir. 1979); Puckett, 
    556 U.S. at 135
    . Accordingly, the judgment
    of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    3