USA v. Roger Mata, No. 12-50087 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-50087 Document: 00512143438 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-50087 Summary Calendar February 14, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROGER MATA, also known as Roger Mata-Ferreiro, also known as Rogelio Mata, Jr., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-1194-2 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Roger Mata appeals the three 120-month sentences that the district court imposed following his convictions for conspiring to import cocaine, conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. Although we typically review sentences for reasonableness following the bifurcated process set forth in Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), Mata concedes that plain error applies because he failed to raise his current * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-50087 Document: 00512143438 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 No. 12-50087 arguments in the district court. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If the appellant makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. To show that an error affects a defendant s substantial rights, the defendant must show that it affected the outcome in the district court. United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir. 2009). We need not decide whether the district court improperly referenced information adduced during Mata s wiretap hearing because Mata s U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) enhancement as an organizer, the validity of which he does not challenge, precluded him from receiving a safety valve adjustment such that the district court could not have sentenced him to less than the 120-month statutory minimum sentences that he received on his convictions for conspiring to import and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(4); 21 U.S.C. §§ 960(b)(1)(B) and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii). Indeed, his argument that the alleged error affected any of his sentences is entirely conclusory; he fails to show that his substantial rights were violated. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364. Mata also contends that the district court failed to consider the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as mandated by the Supreme Court in Gall. He cannot show an effect on his substantial rights because the district court imposed the lowest possible sentence based on the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v. Doggins, 633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
