Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40125/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40125-0/pdf.json

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

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40125

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MANUEL LONGORIA-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-709-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Manuel Longoria-Hernandez pled guilty to being an alien found 

unlawfully in the United States after deportation. Based on a total offense 

level of ten and a criminal history category IV, his advisory guidelines range 

of imprisonment was 15 to 21 months. The district court sentenced him to 21 

months 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

September 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40125 Document: 00513183553 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2015
No. 15-40125

2

On appeal, Longoria-Hernandez argues that the district court erred in 

assessing a criminal history point for his 2012 public intoxication conviction. 

He concedes that, because he failed to object to the criminal history point in 

the district court, this issue is reviewed only for plain error. To establish plain 

error, Longoria-Hernandez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious 

and that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009). The Government concedes that the addition of the criminal history 

point was clearly erroneous.

Longoria-Hernandez’s pre-sentence report listed prior offenses that 

should have been totaled as eight criminal history points. The report, though,

stated there were only seven. Seven criminal history points placed the 

defendant in criminal history category IV. Longoria-Hernandez recognizes in 

his reply brief that there were actually eight criminal history points. The 

erroneous addition of a point for his 2012 public intoxication does not affect his 

criminal history category because, despite that error, he still properly has 

seven points.

A sentencing error affects a defendant’s substantial rights where there 

is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have received a more 

lenient sentence absent the error. United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 

289 (5th Cir. 2011). Longoria-Hernandez has not shown that reasonable 

probability. AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40125 Document: 00513183553 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2015