United States v. Ricky Mendoza Rodriguez, 690 F. App'x 265

Defendant Ricky Mendoza Rodriguez had supervised release revoked; district court sentenced him above the Guidelines to 36 months' imprisonment and eight years' supervised release.
Rodriguez did not object to his sentence in district court; appeal reviewed under plain error standard.
He challenged the sentence as based on improper, irrelevant, and unsupported factors: (1) the court’s disbelief of certain statements he made about his conduct and intentions, (2) the court’s reference to his having children with three different women outside marriage, and (3) the court’s comment about the seriousness of his original crack-cocaine conviction.
The district court also relied on uncontested facts (alcohol use, a DUI arrest, and that Rodriguez absconded for 56 months) in imposing an upward variance.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Rodriguez failed to show clear or obvious error, prejudice, or that remand was required to protect the fairness or integrity of proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of plain-error review	Rodriguez argued the sentence relied on improper factors despite no contemporaneous objection	Appellant maintained district court committed plain error by considering improper factors	Court applied plain-error standard and found no clear or obvious error
Credibility finding / fabricated stories	Rodriguez contended the court improperly disbelieved his explanations and based sentence on that disbelief	District court could reject self-serving statements about marriage plans, absconding for family care, and lawfulness during abscondence	Held credibility determinations are for the factfinder; no plain error in disbelieving his statements
Consideration of nonmarital children/relationships	Rodriguez argued considering fathering children out of wedlock was improper and infringed rights	Government and court treated it as a potentially relevant factor among others	No settled law showing clear error; even if considered, it was not shown to be a dominant factor
Use of seriousness of original conviction	Rodriguez argued referring to his prior offense improperly influenced revocation sentence	Court noted comment but relied principally on other uncontested conduct	Reference did not show the prior offense was the dominant basis for the upward variance; no plain error

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review applies when no contemporaneous sentencing objection is made)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (elements and discretionary relief under plain-error review)
United States v. Davis, 754 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2014) (credibility determinations at sentencing lie with the factfinder)
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (legal error must be clear or obvious to be plain error)
United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 2015) (impermissible consideration is reversible only if it was a dominant factor in revocation sentencing)
United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2007) (objection needed to force district court clarification at sentencing)
United States v. Castaneda-Lozoya, 812 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2016) (speculation as to prejudice from sentencing remarks is insufficient to show effect on substantial rights)
United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2016) (remand unnecessary when record shows no miscarriage of justice)