United States v. Mondragon-Benitez

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10749
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

J. SANTOS MONDRAGON-BENITEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-71-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Defendant-Appellant J. Santos Mondragon-Benitez has appealed the
district court’s judgment revoking his three-year term of supervised release
and imposing a 24-month sentence of imprisonment. He contends that the
district court relied on a prohibited sentencing factor under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(A)—the need for the sentence imposed to promote respect for the
law—when fashioning the revocation 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-10749 Document: 00515441715 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2020

No. 19-10749
2
Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under a “plainly
unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.
2011). When a claim of error has not been preserved, the plain error standard
of review applies. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Because
Mondragon-Benitez’s claim fails even under the ordinary plainly unreasonable
standard, this court need not decide if the plain error standard applies here.
See United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 682 (5th Cir. 2018).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a district court may not rely on the
sentencing factors listed in § 3553(a)(2)(A), including the need for the sentence
imposed to promote respect for the law, when modifying or revoking a
supervised release term. Miller, 634 F.3d at 844. Mondragon-Benitez’s
assertion that the district court relied on the prohibited respect-for-the-law
factor is based on two oral statements made by the district court during the
revocation hearing: (1) that the district court had considered the issues
discussed in Mondragon-Benitez’s illegal reentry sentencing hearing, which
immediately preceded the revocation hearing and (2) that his repeated illegal
reentries were inexcusable and perhaps reflected his belief that the laws of the
United States were meaningless and that he could do whatever he wanted to
do. According to Mondragon-Benitez, these statements establish that the
district court impermissibly relied on the need to promote respect for the law
when choosing a 24-month sentence, which was greater than the recommended
range of eight to fourteen months.
Mondragon-Benitez’s contentions are without merit. Not only did the
district court fail to expressly reference the prohibited factor, it also explicitly
noted that it had considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) “as
considered in a revocation context.” (emphasis added). It also implicitly
referenced the permissible factors of deterrence and protection of the public.
Case: 19-10749 Document: 00515441715 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2020

No. 19-10749
3
These facts are enough to warrant our affirmance. See Sanchez, 900 F.3d at
684-85. But, even if the district court considered the prohibited factor, it was
not a dominant factor in the sentencing decision. No reversible error occurred.
See United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir.), reh’g denied, 797
F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2015).
Mondragon-Benitez has not shown that the revocation sentence was
plainly unreasonable. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-10749 Document: 00515441715 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2020