USA v. Francis Salcie-De Los Santos, No. 15-40630 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-40630 Document: 00513405312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-40630 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 3, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. FRANCIS DAVID SALCIE-DE LOS SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:14-CR-884-1 Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Francis David Salcie-De Los Santos appeals the 18-month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. His sole argument, raised for the first time on appeal, is that the district court erred in assessing an eight-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on his prior convictions for aggravated felonies. Because Salcie did not raise this argument below, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Peltier, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-40630 Document: 00513405312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 No. 15-40630 505 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 2007). To demonstrate plain error, Salcie must show a clear or obvious error that affects his substantial rights; even if he makes this 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. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Salcie has failed to satisfy this burden. See id; United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 319 (5th Cir. 2010); see also 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(C); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.3(A)); United States v. Arces-Venes v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 2007). 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.