USA v. J. Mondragon-Benitez, No. 19-10749 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-10749 Document: 00515441715 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-10749 Summary Calendar FILED June 4, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. J. SANTOS MONDRAGON-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-71-1 Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant J. Santos Mondragon-Benitez has appealed the district court’s judgment revoking his three-year term of supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence of imprisonment. He contends that the district court relied on a prohibited sentencing factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)—the need for the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law—when fashioning the revocation sentence. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-10749 Document: 00515441715 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 No. 19-10749 Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under a “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). When a claim of error has not been preserved, the plain error standard of review applies. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Because Mondragon-Benitez’s claim fails even under the ordinary plainly unreasonable standard, this court need not decide if the plain error standard applies here. See United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 682 (5th Cir. 2018). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a district court may not rely on the sentencing factors listed in § 3553(a)(2)(A), including the need for the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, when modifying or revoking a supervised release term. Miller, 634 F.3d at 844. Mondragon-Benitez’s assertion that the district court relied on the prohibited respect-for-the-law factor is based on two oral statements made by the district court during the revocation hearing: (1) that the district court had considered the issues discussed in Mondragon-Benitez’s illegal reentry sentencing hearing, which immediately preceded the revocation hearing and (2) that his repeated illegal reentries were inexcusable and perhaps reflected his belief that the laws of the United States were meaningless and that he could do whatever he wanted to do. According to Mondragon-Benitez, these statements establish that the district court impermissibly relied on the need to promote respect for the law when choosing a 24-month sentence, which was greater than the recommended range of eight to fourteen months. Mondragon-Benitez’s contentions are without merit. Not only did the district court fail to expressly reference the prohibited factor, it also explicitly noted that it had considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) “as considered in a revocation context.” (emphasis added). It also implicitly referenced the permissible factors of deterrence and protection of the public. 2 Case: 19-10749 Document: 00515441715 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 No. 19-10749 These facts are enough to warrant our affirmance. See Sanchez, 900 F.3d at 684-85. But, even if the district court considered the prohibited factor, it was not a dominant factor in the sentencing decision. No reversible error occurred. See United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir.), reh’g denied, 797 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2015). Mondragon-Benitez has not shown that the revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
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.
