Case: 21-10715 Document: 00516163774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 12, 2022 No. 21-10715 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Joseph Martinez, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-95-1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Joseph Martinez appeals the 24-month prison term imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. He concedes that the district court provided adequate reasons to support the prison term but asserts that the court was further obligated under Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007),

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 21-10715 Document: 00516163774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2022

No. 21-10715

to specifically address his nonfrivolous arguments for a sentence of time served. We review this forfeited objection for plain error. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207 (2021).

The record as a whole reflects that the district court considered Martinez’s arguments concerning the passage of time between his supervised release violations and the revocation proceeding, the time he served in state prison in the interim, his state parole supervision, and his personal circumstances. The court’s stated explanation for the within-guidelines sentence provided a reasoned basis for it. Accordingly, the court did not err by failing to reference each of Martinez’s arguments. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 343-45, 356, 358-59; Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 584, 586-87 & nn.4-6; United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2013). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). In the interest of judicial economy, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits is DENIED as unnecessary. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.