Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50749/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50749-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian Hernandez-Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50749

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIAN HERNANDEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-782-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Julian Hernandez-Garcia appeals the withinguidelines sentence of 57 months in prison he received following his guilty plea 

conviction for illegal reentry. He maintains that the district court erred in 

imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) because 

his Kansas convictions for distribution of cocaine did not qualify as drug 

trafficking offenses for which he received an imposed sentence exceeding 13 

 

* 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

October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50749 Document: 00513725025 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 15-50749

2

months. Because Hernandez-Garcia raises this issue for the first time on 

appeal, we review for plain error. See United States v. Palacios-Quinonez, 431 

F.3d 471, 473 (5th Cir. 2005). To prevail on plain error review, he must show 

(1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious and (3) that affects his 

substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If 

Hernandez-Garcia makes the required showing, we may exercise our 

discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id.

Whether a Kansas judgment reflecting the imposition of a sentence of 

incarceration and the grant of a downward departure to a term of probation 

qualifies as an imposed sentence exceeding 13 months is a question that is 

subject to reasonable dispute. See id.; United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377-

78 (5th Cir. 2009). That question is reasonably debatable, so there can be no 

plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Ellis, 564 F.3d at 377-78. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-50749 Document: 00513725025 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016