Case ID: f-appx_581/html/0452-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando Alfredo MORA, also known as Fernando Alfredo Mora Robledo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40705
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 9, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Fernando Alfredo Mora appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The district court imposed the lowest within-guidelines sentence, 33 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

Mora argues that the district court reversibly erred by failing to award him an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b). As we held recently in United States v. Villegas Palacios, No. 13-40153, 756 F.3d 325, 2014 WL 2119096, at *1 (5th Cir. May 21, 2014), the amended version of § 3E1.1 is applicable in a case such as this one, where the amendment was proposed at the time of sentencing and went into effect while the appeal was pending. Pursuant to the amended § 3E1.1, the Government may not withhold a § 3E 1.1(b) motion because the defendant refuses to waive his right to appeal, as it did in this case. The Government has not shown that this error was harmless. See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752-53 (5th Cir.2009).

Accordingly, Mora’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.