Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50808/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50808-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Barrera-Velasquez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50808

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL BARRERA-VELASQUEZ, also known as Raul V. Barrera, also known 

as Raul Velasquez Barrera, also known as Raul Velasquez-Barrera,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:19-CR-284-1

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Raising three issues, Raul Barrera-Velasquez appeals the 24-month 

prison sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegally 

reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He 

first argues that the district court erred in failing to give notice pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. § 851 that it would apply the 10-level enhancement of U.S.S.G. 

* 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

May 29, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50808 Document: 00515433049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2020
No. 19-50808

2

§ 2L1.2(b)(3)(A) based on one of his prior convictions. The notice requirements 

of § 851 do “not apply . . . when sentencing is conducted under the Sentencing 

Guidelines and the defendant receives an increased sentence, which is within 

a statutory range.” United States v. Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th 

Cir. 1990). Barrera-Velasquez’s 24-month sentence is less than his 10-year 

statutory maximum under § 1326(b)(1). Accordingly, he has shown no error, 

plain or otherwise. See id.; United States v. Ponce-Flores, 900 F.3d 215, 217 

(5th Cir. 2018).

Barrera-Velasquez next argues that the district court erred in applying 

the 10-level enhancement of § 2L1.2(b)(3)(A) where he served less than a year 

of his five-year prison term and was released on parole. Because the 

sentencing court imposed a five-year maximum prison term and BarreraVelasquez served part of that term, the district court did not plainly err in 

assessing the 10-level enhancement. See United States v. Enrique-Ascencio, 

857 F.3d 668, 674 (5th Cir. 2017); § 2L1.2, comment (n.2); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(b) 

& comment. (n.2).

Finally, Barrera-Velasquez argues that § 2L1.2 is unconstitutional as 

applied in his case because there was no rational basis for the differential 

offense level enhancements afforded to the various types of prior sentences. 

He has shown no plain error given the reasons we have previously recognized 

for § 2L1.2’s different offense level enhancements based on initial sentence 

length. See United States v. Franco-Galvan, 864 F.3d 338, 342 (5th Cir. 2017); 

see also Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 498, 504 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-50808 Document: 00515433049 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2020