United States v. Raymorris Asencio

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60659
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

RAYMORRIS ASENCIO,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:17-CR-31-1

Before OWEN, Chief Judge, and SOUTHWICK and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

A jury convicted Raymorris Asencio of aiding and abetting the sex
trafficking of a minor by force, fraud, or coercion and aiding and abetting the
transportation of a minor in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging
in prostitution and sexual activity. He was sentenced to 360 months of
imprisonment and five years of supervised release.

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 18-60659 Document: 00515372507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2020

No. 18-60659
2
Pointing to an unsolicited and fleeting statement by one of the
Government’s witnesses that Asencio was a convicted felon, Asencio argues
that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial. Because Asencio did not
complain about this statement in the district court, we review only for plain
error. See Puckett v. United States 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States
v. Sanders, 952 F.3d 263, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Johnson, 943
F.3d 214, 224 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2019). Even if we assume that there was clear or
obvious error, Asencio cannot prevail because he has failed to show a
reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been
different but for the error. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.
1338, 1343 (2016); United States v. Mendoza-Velasquez, 847 F.3d 209, 212 (5th
Cir. 2017).
Asencio also argues that the district court refused to consider the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when it sentenced him. We review this argument
for plain error as well. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357,
361 (5th Cir. 2009). Asencio cannot show any error as the district court
explicitly stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors in determining the
appropriate sentence here.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 18-60659 Document: 00515372507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2020