United States v. Arenas-Tellez ( 2021 )

Case: 21-10401 Document: 00516138236 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 20, 2021
No. 21-10401 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Roberto Arenas-Tellez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-331
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Roberto Arenas-Tellez appeals the 24-month, within-guidelines range
sentenced imposed upon his guilty plea to illegal reentry following
deportation. He contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to adequately explain its sentence in light of his nonfrivolous arguments for a
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10401 Document: 00516138236 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2021
No. 21-10401
below-guidelines range sentence. The Government moves for summary
affirmance, asserting that Arenas-Tellez’s appeal of the district court’s
sentence explanation is foreclosed by United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d
583 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 2021 WL 4508433 (Oct. 4, 2021) (No. 20-
8439). Alternatively, the Government seeks an extension of time to file a
merits brief.
Arenas-Tellez’s challenge to his sentence is not so clearly foreclosed
by circuit precedent as to warrant summary affirmance. We therefore
DENY the motion for summary affirmance. Because this case may be
resolved without further briefing, we also DENY, as unnecessary, the
Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time.
The record reflects that the district court listened to Arenas-Tellez’s
arguments but “simply found these circumstances insufficient to warrant a
sentence lower than the Guidelines range.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 358 (2007). Despite its terseness, the district court’s explanation
suffices to show that it considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned
basis for its sentence. See United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d 728, 732 (5th
Cir. 2013). Accordingly, Arenas-Tellez fails to show plain error. See Puckett
v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d
256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2