United States v. Rojas-Torres ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 20-50516     Document: 00515869008         Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/19/2021
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    May 19, 2021
    No. 20-50516                    Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                       Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Edguin Ramon Rojas-Torres,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:19-CR-3887-1
    Before Jolly, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Edguin Ramon Rojas-Torres appeals the sentence imposed following
    his guilty plea to illegal reentry following removal in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a) and (b)(1). He argues that the district court erred in not allowing
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50516      Document: 00515869008          Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/19/2021
    No. 20-50516
    his defense counsel an opportunity to speak on his behalf at sentencing in
    violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(i).
    Because defense counsel failed to object to the alleged Rule 32 error,
    our review is for plain error. United States v. Vasquez, 
    216 F.3d 456
    , 459 (5th
    Cir. 2000). To establish plain error, Rojas-Torres must show that the district
    court committed a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights.
    See Puckett v. United States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135 (2009). If those requirements
    are met, we have the discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the
    fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. 
    Id.
    Because the sentencing transcript indicates that counsel was afforded
    an opportunity to speak as required by Rule 32, it does not reflect any error,
    much less clear or obvious error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(i);
    Puckett, 
    556 U.S. at 135
    ; Vasquez, 
    216 F.3d at 458-59
    . The district court’s
    judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-50516

Filed Date: 5/19/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/20/2021