USA v. Pablo Escarcega-Morales, No. 14-50861 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-50861 Document: 00513258656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-50861 Summary Calendar FILED November 4, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PABLO ESCARCEGA-MORALES, also known as Paulino Escarcega-Morales, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CR-174-1 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pablo Escarcega-Morales pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation after conviction of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). He was sentenced to 46 months in prison, which was at the bottom of his advisory guidelines range, and three years of supervised release. For the first time, Escarcega-Morales argues that the district court failed to provide him with an opportunity to allocute prior to imposing sentence as 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-50861 Document: 00513258656 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2015 No. 14-50861 required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). Because Escarcega-Morales did not object to the error at sentencing, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court asked Escarcega-Morales, “Mr. Escarcega-Morales, do you have any questions or anything you wish to say?” Although the question was not posed until after the district court had already announced a sentence, the district court corrected itself, which it was allowed to do, and gave Escarcega-Morales the opportunity to allocute. Thus, Escarcega-Morales has not shown that the district court committed any error, much less plain error, with respect to Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264, 279 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Hernandez, 291 F.3d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 2002). The judgment of the district court 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.
