Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50445/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50445-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Carlos Gallegos-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50445

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE CARLOS GALLEGOS-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-324

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Carlos Gallegos-Hernandez (Gallegos) appeals the 60-month 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess 

with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846. He contends that the district court erroneously denied him relief 

under the safety valve provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a), 

* 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

February 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50445 Document: 00512923141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2015
No. 14-50445

which would have enabled him to be sentenced without regard to the statutory 

minimum.

Gallegos indicates that he has abandoned the argument, raised below, 

that the district court retained the discretion to apply the safety valve to cases 

in which the defendant has more than one criminal history point, conceding 

that any such argument is foreclosed. He nevertheless argues that the denial 

of safety-valve relief in his case was error because the assessment of two 

criminal history points for his 2006 illegal reentry conviction was 

unreasonable, urging that the offense is essentially a petty misdemeanor and 

that assigning two points for such offenses is “arbitrary and without a rational 

foundation.” According to Gallegos, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 should apply in such 

cases to avoid the injustice of overrepresenting the gravity of illegal reentry 

offenses. He also argues, for the first time on appeal, that his prior illegal 

reentry conviction was double counted under the Guidelines because it was 

used both to increase his criminal history score and to deny him safety-valve 

eligibility. 

As Gallegos concedes, the argument that district courts retain the 

discretion to grant a downward departure under § 4A1.3 to render a defendant 

with more than one criminal history point eligible for the safety valve is 

foreclosed. See United States v. Solis, 675 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 2012); United 

States v. Jasso, 634 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2011). To the extent that he contends 

that his sentence is unreasonable because his prior conviction was not serious, 

the argument is similarly foreclosed. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 

F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 

(5th Cir. 2006). Gallegos’s double-counting argument is likewise foreclosed. 

See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).

2

Case: 14-50445 Document: 00512923141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2015
No. 14-50445

To the extent that Gallegos seeks to have this court overturn the prior 

decision in Duarte, the argument is unavailing. One panel of this court may 

not overrule the decision of a prior panel in the absence of an en banc decision 

or a superseding Supreme Court decision. United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 

303, 313 & n.34 (5th Cir. 2002). 

The Government has moved for summary affirmance in this case. As the 

Government fails to address Gallegos’s argument challenging the assessment 

of two criminal history points for a nonviolent illegal reentry offense, summary 

affirmance is not appropriate, and the motion is DENIED. See United States 

v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Gallegos is not entitled to relief, however, and the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file an appellate brief is DENIED.

3

Case: 14-50445 Document: 00512923141 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/02/2015