Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40448/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40448-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Guerrero
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40448

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1636-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Guerrero appeals his 30-month sentence for knowingly 

transporting an illegal alien for the purpose of financial gain. The sentence 

constituted a nine-month increase from the applicable guidelines range of 15-

21 months, which the district court stated was an upward departure pursuant 

to two sections of the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court’s statements 

at sentencing reflected concern that Guerrero had a prior conviction for the 

 

* 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 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40448 Document: 00513371016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2016
No. 15-40448

2

same offense for which he had received a 20-month sentence, only one month 

below the top of the current guidelines range.

On appeal, Guerrero asserts that the district court abused its discretion 

by imposing the upward departure. He contends that the departure may not 

be justified under § 5K2.0, which covers aggravating or mitigating 

circumstances, because the commentary to this policy statement states that 

departures based on criminal history should be considered under § 4A1.3. But, 

he maintains, the court could not rely on § 4A1.3 to support the departure 

because nothing in that section’s policy statement authorizes an upward 

departure based on the similarity of the instant offense to the conduct 

underlying a prior conviction. The Government asserts that we should review 

Guerrero’s claims for plain error because he did not raise these grounds in the 

district court.

We need not resolve the proper standard of review, as Guerrero’s claims 

fail even under the more onerous abuse-of-discretion standard. See United 

States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir. 2006). This court has 

upheld an upward departure based on the similarity between the defendant’s 

prior and current convictions under each of the policy statements relied upon 

by the district court. See United States v. Schmeltzer, 20 F.3d 610, 613 (5th 

Cir. 1994) (§ 5K2.0); United States v. De Luna-Trujillo, 868 F.2d 122, 124-25 

(5th Cir. 1989) (§ 4A1.3). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40448 Document: 00513371016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2016