Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41090/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Manuel Andino-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41090

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MANUEL ANDINO-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-263-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Manuel-Andino Hernandez was convicted, pursuant to his guilty 

plea, of being illegally present in the United States after removal. The district 

court enhanced his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a 

determination that his Florida conviction of aggravated battery was a crime of 

violence (COV). Andino-Hernandez was sentenced within the guidelines range 

to a 50-month term of imprisonment.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41090 Document: 00513560607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2016
No. 15-41090

2

On appeal, Andino-Hernandez contends that his Florida aggravated 

battery conviction was not a COV and that the district court therefore erred in 

applying the 16-level enhancement. The Government argues that the 

enhancement was properly applied because Andino-Hernandez’s aggravated 

battery offense has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of 

physical force. As discussed below, we need not determine whether the district 

court erred in applying the enhancement because we agree with the 

Government’s contention that the error, if any, in applying the enhancement 

was harmless. See United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 511-12 (5th Cir. 

2012).

When a significant procedural error occurs at sentencing, remand for 

resentencing is required unless the error was harmless. United States v. 

Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s 

remarks at sentencing convincingly demonstrate that it had a particular 

sentence in mind, that it would have imposed the same 50-month sentence had 

it not made the alleged error with respect to imposition of the enhancement, 

and that it would have imposed that sentence for the same reasons. See United 

States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712, 714, 718 (5th Cir. 2010); see also 

Richardson, 713 F.3d at 237 (“[A]ny error in calculating the total offense level 

was harmless, given the district court’s clear statements that it would have 

imposed the same sentence regardless of the correctness in the calculation.”). 

Because the Government has sufficiently demonstrated that any error in 

applying the enhancement was harmless, the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41090 Document: 00513560607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2016