USA v. Felipe Saucedo, III, No. 13-51157 (5th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 13-51157 Document: 00512881247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-51157 Summary Calendar FILED December 23, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FELIPE SAUCEDO, III, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:08-CR-653-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Felipe Saucedo, III, has appealed the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a 24-month term of imprisonment. He contends that the sentence imposed was greater than necessary to fulfill the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and was, therefore, unreasonable. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-51157 Document: 00512881247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2014 No. 13-51157 Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under a “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). However, because no objection was made at the revocation hearing, this court’s review of Saucedo’s revocation sentence is limited to plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, Saucedo must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he 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. See id. Saucedo does not dispute that the district court imposed a statutory maximum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court considered the guidelines policy statements and appropriate statutory sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B); United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 90-93 (5th Cir. 1994). No error, plain or otherwise, has been identified. judgment is AFFIRMED. 2 The

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.