
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Jorge Hernandez TAMAYO, also known as Luis Jorge Hernandez, also known as Luis Hernandez, also known as Luis Jorg Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-20157 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed January 3, 2017
    
      Alfredo Perez De La-Rosa, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Luis Jorge Hernandez Tamayo, Pro Se
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Luis Jorge Hernandez Tamayo appeals the 23-month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for imposing a within-guidelines sentence in light of his request for a downward departure. Because Hernandez Tamayo did not preserve this objection in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir. 2009). He must therefore show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If Hernandez Ta-mayo makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

The district court provided brief but sufficient reasons for imposing the 23-month sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Additionally, nothing in the record indicates that Hernandez Tamayo’s sentence would have been different if the court had provided more explanation of its chosen sentence. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 363-64. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
     