United States v. Jesus Cantu-Rosas , 581 F. App'x 363 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-50948 Document: 00512753079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-50948
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 2, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JESUS ALONSO CANTU-ROSAS, also known as Jesus Villa-Mireles,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:06-CR-967-1
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jesus Alonso Cantu-Rosas appeals the consecutive 24-month sentence
imposed upon revocation of his supervised release following his conviction and
82-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Cantu-
Rosas argues that the district court committed significant procedural error by
failing to recognize its authority to order that his revocation sentence run
partially concurrent with the 82-month drug sentence.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-50948 Document: 00512753079 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2014
No. 13-50948
Cantu-Rosas challenges the district court’s incorrect statement
regarding its authority to impose a partially concurrent sentence for the first
time on appeal. Accordingly, we review for plain error only. See United States
v. Kirklin, 701 F.3d 177, 178-79 (5th Cir. 2012). The Government concedes
that the district court committed a clear and obvious error by stating that it
was statutorily barred from imposing a partially concurrent revocation
sentence. See United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 91-93 (5th Cir. 1994); 18
U.S.C. § 3584(a); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c).
However, Cantu-Rosas cannot show that his substantial rights were
affected because he does not demonstrate a reasonable probability that he
would have received a lesser sentence but for the error. See United States v.
Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 2010). Nor does he demonstrate that we
should exercise discretion to remand because the error seriously affected the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of his judicial proceedings. See Kirklin,
701 F.3d at 180; United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir.
2008). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2