Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40246/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40246-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Munoz-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* This appeal is being decided by a quorum due to the passing of Judge

Reynaldo Garza. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 

** 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

1 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 23, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40246

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS MUNOZ-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-1280-ALL

______________________

Before HIGGINBOTHAM and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Jesus Munoz-Hernandez contends that his Sixth Amendment right

to a jury trial was violated when he was sentenced based on facts

not found by a jury, citing United States v. Booker.

1 We conclude

that his sentence must be affirmed. 

 Case: 03-40246 Document: 0051180412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2005
2 United States v. Munoz-Hernandez, 94 Fed. Appx. 243 (5th Cir. Apr. 19,

2004) (unpublished).

3 Munoz-Hernandez v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 999 (Mar. 1, 2005).

4 See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005). As part

of this conclusion, we observe that Munoz-Hernandez did not “repeatedly object”

to the district court’s determination of drug quantity on the ground that the

figure had not be proven at trial, nor did he “consistently urge” that the

district court confine its determination to the amount alleged in the indictment.

See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 376 (5th Cir. 2005).

5 United States v. Infante, 404 F.3d 376, 394 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993)).

Munoz-Hernandez was convicted by a jury for possessing with

intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The PSR

indicated that Munoz-Hernandez was responsible for 33.25 kilograms

of cocaine, fixing his base offense level at thirty-four and

producing a Guidelines imprisonment range of 151-188 months.

Consistent with the probation officer’s recommendation that MunozHernandez be sentenced at the “low end” of the range, the district

court imposed a sentence of 151 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed

in an unpublished opinion.2 Following its decision in Booker, the

Court vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration

in light of Booker.

3

Munoz-Hernandez concedes that he failed to preserve error with

respect to his Booker issue. Thus, our review is for plain error

only.4 “We find plain error when: (1) there was an error; (2) the

error was clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected the

defendant’s substantial rights.”5 If all three of these conditions

are met, we may exercise our discretion to notice the error if “the

 Case: 03-40246 Document: 0051180412 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2005
6 United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002).

7 See Infante, 404 F.3d at 394; Mares, 402 F.3d at 520.

8 Infante, 404 F.3d at 395; compare United States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d

310, 317 n.4 (5th CIr. 2005) (“[T]he fact that the sentencing judge imposed the

minimum sentence under the Guideline range . . . alone is no indication that the

judge would have reached a different conclusion under an advisory scheme.”), with

United States v. Pennell, 409 F.3d 240, 245-46 (5th Cir. 2005) (sentence placed

at the bottom of the Guidelines range plus a statement by the district court

that, “from many standpoints of fairness and justice,” it would be better to

sentence outside the Guidelines range sufficient to establish prejudice).

error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.”6 

Munoz-Hernandez satisfies the first two prongs of the plain

error test because the district court committed Sixth Amendment

Booker error and because that error is now plain after Booker.

7

With respect to prejudice, Munoz-Hernandez argues that three facts

indicate that the district court would likely have assessed a

different sentence under an advisory regime: (1) his sentence was

placed at the very bottom of the Guidelines range; (2) he was a

first-time offender; and (3) his conviction resulted in deportation

proceedings being initiated against him. These facts are

insufficient to establish, “with a probability sufficient to

undermine confidence in the outcome, that if the judge had

sentenced him under an advisory sentencing regime rather than a

mandatory one,” Munoz-Hernandez would have received a lesser

sentence.8

Having reconsidered in light of Booker, we REINSTATE our

decision affirming Munoz-Hernandez’s conviction, and AFFIRM his

sentence.

 Case: 03-40246 Document: 0051180412 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/23/2005
 Case: 03-40246 Document: 0051180412 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/23/2005