Full Opinion

Case: 25-50704 Document: 81-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-50704 October 30, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Carlos Antonio Sanchez-Varela, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-2956-1 ______________________________ Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Following Carlos Antonio Sanchez-Varela’s guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States, the district court sentenced him to 108 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Sanchez-Varela argues that the district court referenced impermissible factors when imposing the three-year term of supervised release. Because Sanchez-Varela did not object on this basis in district court, the issue is * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50704 Document: 81-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2026 No. 25-50704 reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 2014). At Sanchez-Varela’s sentencing, the district court ordered that, upon release from imprisonment, Sanchez-Varela would be placed on a term of supervised release for three years “to promote respect for the law, to impose a just sentence, to deter future criminal conduct, and to protect the public.” Even if this constituted clear or obvious error, see Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185, 195–96 (2025), Sanchez-Varela has failed to meet his burden of establishing the remaining prongs of the plain error analysis, see United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2004); see also Walker, 742 F.3d at 617 (affirming sentence when impermissible rehabilitative factor was “not a dominant factor” in sentencing decision). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2