USA v. Reynaldo Medina-Sanchez, No. 13-51188 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-51188 Document: 00512846586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-51188 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 24, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. REYNALDO MEDINA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:13-CR-1803 Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Reynaldo Medina-Sanchez (Medina) pleaded guilty of illegal reentry and was sentenced within the guidelines range to a 24-month term of imprisonment and to a two-year period of supervised release. On appeal, Medina contends that his conviction should be overturned because the district court failed to advise him of his right to counsel and of its obligation to apply the Sentencing Guidelines. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-51188 Document: 00512846586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 No. 13-51188 We have reviewed these questions for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002). To show plain error, Medina 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. The district court failed to advise Medina of his right to counsel, appointed if necessary, at trial and at every stage of the proceeding. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(D). The error did not affect Medina’s substantial rights, however. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Medina was represented initially by appointed counsel and did not equivocate in entering his guilty plea. He has not shown that there is a “reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004); see United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d 440, 445 (5th Cir. 2000). Medina further contends that the district court did not address him personally and did not advise him adequately that it was obligated to consult the Guidelines. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(M). Because the record does not support these contentions, no error is discernible, plain or otherwise. The judgment is 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.
