Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40999/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40999-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Saul Rios-Luna
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40999

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAUL RIOS-LUNA, also known as Agustin Lopez-Mijangos,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-266

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Saul Rios-Luna (Rios) pleaded guilty to being an alien unlawfully 

present in the United States after a previous deportation in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1326. The district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 41 

months of imprisonment.

Initially, Rios argues that the district court’s application of the 16-level 

offense enhancement provision under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) violates 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

September 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40999 Document: 00513202991 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2015
No. 14-40999

2

Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection because the Guideline: (1) uses 

prior convictions to enhance the offense level; (2) lacks an empirical basis; (3) 

results in excessive sentences as compared to sentences for more egregious 

crimes; and (4) double-counts the prior conviction. However, the enhancement 

of Rios’s sentence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) did not violate his right to equal 

protection of the law. See United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 

1134 (5th Cir. 1993). We have emphasized that the Sentencing Commission 

intended, in singling out certain offenses under § 2L1.2 for significant 

enhancement, to identify and to penalize those crimes that are violent or 

forceful, or risk violence and the application of force. United States v. ZavalaMontoya, 71 F. App’x 358, 361 (5th Cir. 2003). Moreover, we have consistently 

rejected “double counting” arguments and arguments that § 2L1.2 results in 

excessive sentences because it is not empirically based. See United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).

In addition, Rios maintains that he should have been sentenced under

§ 1326(a) and that his sentence is unconstitutional because the conviction used 

to enhance his sentence was not alleged in his indictment. As Rios

acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United 

States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998). See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 

F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007).

Finally, Rios argues that the enhancement provision of § 2L1.2 violates 

his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. 

However, his within-guidelines sentence is not grossly disproportionate to his 

offense such that it violates the Eighth Amendment. See Cardenas-Alvarez, 

987 F.2d at 1134.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-40999 Document: 00513202991 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2015