United States v. Portillo-Orellana
Docket: No. 07-41118
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; August 18, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Jose Leandro Portillo-Orellana appeals his 52-month sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which was within the advisory sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reviews sentencing decisions for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Portillo contends the district court inadequately justified its within-guidelines sentence and denied his arguments for a below-guidelines sentence. As these challenges were not raised in the district court, the appellate review applies plain error standards, requiring Portillo to demonstrate a clear or obvious error affecting his substantial rights. The court acknowledges that the district court failed to adequately explain its sentencing rationale; however, Portillo did not establish that this error influenced his sentence outcome. Additionally, Portillo's assertion that his within-guidelines sentence should not be presumed reasonable due to alleged procedural flaws in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 was dismissed, following precedent set in United States v. Mondragon-Santiago. Portillo also claimed that recent Supreme Court rulings expanded district court discretion for non-guidelines sentences, but the record did not indicate that the district court felt constrained by prior case law in considering Portillo’s arguments for a lesser sentence. Ultimately, the court found no plain error or any misinterpretation of the district court's authority regarding sentencing. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and the opinion will not be published as it does not set precedent under 5th Cir. R. 47.5.