UNITED STATES v. AZAM (2018)

For conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, Mohammed Azam was sentenced, at the bottom of the applicable guideline range, to twenty-four months. He contends that the district court committed procedural error in failing to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence.

Because Azam did not raise this argument in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). For plain error, Azam must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008). This court will correct such an error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

Azam does not explain how his sentence might have differed had the court provided a more thorough explanation. Even if he has identified clear or obvious error with respect to the adequacy of the explanation, he has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65. Therefore, he has not shown plain error. See id. at 364-65; Baker, 538 F.3d at 332.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.