Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20733/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20733-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elvis Marino Mosquera-Valois
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20733

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ELVIS MARINO MOSQUERA-VALOIS, also known as Jose Luis Vasquez, also 

known as Wilbert Rodriguez Sejuelas, also known as Wilbert R. Sejuelas, also known 

as Elvis Marino Mosquera, also known as Wilbert Rodriguez-Sejuelas, also known as 

Jose L. Vasquez, also known as Elmer A. Alverez,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-268-1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elvis Marino Mosquera-Valois challenges the sentence of 70-months’ 

imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry 

into the United States after deportation, following a conviction for an 

aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He contends 

* 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 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 13-20733 Document: 00512929256 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2015
No. 13-20733

the district court violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights and imposed 

a substantively unreasonable sentence by applying a 16-level enhancement,

pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) (“If the defendant 

previously was deported, or unlawfully remained in the United States, after 

. . . a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 

months; . . . increase by 16 levels . . . .”). 

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly 

preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly 

calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the 

sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that 

respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines 

is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States 

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

Because Mosquera did not raise these issues in district court, review is 

only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Moreno-Florean, 542 F.3d 445, 448

(5th Cir. 2008). Under that standard, Mosquera must show a forfeited plain 

(clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct 

the error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of the proceedings. Id. For each issue, he fails to show a 

clear or obvious error. 

The Eighth Amendment precludes the imposition of sentences that are 

greatly disproportionate to the offenses because such sentences are cruel and 

unusual. E.g., United States v. Thomas, 627 F.3d 146, 160 (5th Cir. 2010)

(citation and quotation marks omitted). In deciding whether a sentence is 

unconstitutionally disproportionate, our court “makes a threshold comparison 

2

Case: 13-20733 Document: 00512929256 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2015
No. 13-20733

of the gravity of the offense against the severity of the sentence”. Id. (citation 

omitted). Unless the threshold comparison leads to an inference of gross 

disproportionality, our court will not inquire further. E.g., McGruder v. 

Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992). As a general matter, the Guidelines 

are a “convincing objective indicator of proportionality”. United States v. 

Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Mosquera’s sentence is within his advisory Guidelines-sentencing range. 

Because he has not otherwise demonstrated a gross disproportionality between 

the sentence and his offense, he has failed to show a clear or obvious Eighth 

Amendment error. E.g., id.; United States v. Castillo, 294 F. App’x 855, 856 

(5th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

As for his Fifth Amendment due-process claim, Mosquera challenges the 

court’s application of the 16-level enhancement without a hearing to ascertain

the particular facts of the prior offense on which the enhancement was based. 

Because the court applied the enhancement consistently with Descamps v. 

United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 2281 (2013), by basing the analysis on the 

elements of the offense, rather than the underlying facts, Mosquera fails to 

show a clear or obvious error affecting his substantial rights under the Fifth 

Amendment. E.g., United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458–59 (5th 

Cir. 2014), petition for cert. filed (15 Dec. 2014) (No. 14-7593).

Mosquera also contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable, 

claiming the 16-level enhancement is inconsistent with the policies underlying 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (sentencing factors). Because Mosquera’s sentence was 

within the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range, the sentence is 

presumptively reasonable. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 

2009). At sentencing, the court considered Mosquera’s objections to the

3

Case: 13-20733 Document: 00512929256 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/06/2015
No. 13-20733

Guideline-sentencing-range calculations in the presentence investigation 

report, his request for a downward departure based on cultural assimilation, 

and his allocution. Mosquera has not shown the district court failed to account 

for a relevant factor, weighted too heavily an improper factor, or clearly erred 

in weighing the various factors in setting the sentence. E.g., id. His claim thus 

amounts to a disagreement with his sentence. Moreover, as noted, a 

presumption of reasonableness applies to his sentence. As with his other two 

issues, he fails to show a clear or obvious error. 

AFFIRMED.

4

Case: 13-20733 Document: 00512929256 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/06/2015