Case: 12-10656 Document: 00512178702 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2013
waive his appellate rights. Medrano contends that the district court has the
authority to award the additional point despite the Government's failure to move
for it. He asserts that, if the district court were without the authority to award
the point, the power of the Government to withhold the additional point decrease
for acceptance of responsibility would violate the separation-of-powers doctrine.
We have rejected virtually identical contentions. See United States v.
Newsom, 515 F.3d 374, 376-79 (5th Cir. 2008). A district court cannot award an
additional point for acceptance of responsibility absent a motion from the
Government pursuant to § 3E1.1. Id. at 378. Medrano’s argument regarding a
violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine is foreclosed by United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See id. at 376.
Medrano argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because
the district court did not address his argument for a lesser sentence. He
contends that his request for leniency based on the staleness of his convictions
was sufficient to preserve his procedural reasonableness challenge. Medrano’s
failure to request a further explanation at sentencing results in plain error
review. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.
2009). To succeed under the plain error standard, Medrano must show (1) a
forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious and (3) that affects his substantial
rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that
showing, this court may exercise its discretion “to remedy the error . . . if the
error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, bracketing, and citation omitted).
“The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate
court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Additionally, where the defendant “presents nonfrivolous
reasons for imposing a different sentence, . . . the judge will normally go further
and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” Id. at 357. However, the