Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-41068/USCOURTS-ca5-13-41068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julio Sarabia-Baltazar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41068

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JULIO SARABIA-BALTAZAR, also known as Jose Noel Mercado,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-761-1

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Sarabia-Baltazar challenges his 57-month sentence of 

imprisonment, imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following 

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends the district court 

erroneously applied a 16-level enhancement pursuant to Sentencing Guideline

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), based on his 2010 Oklahoma-state convictions for: 

conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, cocaine; and possession, with 

 

* 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

July 7, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 13-41068 Document: 00513106364 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015
No. 13-41068

2

intent to distribute, cocaine. Sarabia asserts the Oklahoma statutory 

provisions under which he was convicted are broader than the generic 

contemporary definition of “drug trafficking offense” in the commentary to 

Guideline § 2L1.2 because they criminalize the distribution of cocaine without 

remuneration. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iv) (“‘Drug trafficking offense’

means an offense under federal, state, or local law that prohibits the 

manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of, or offer to sell a 

controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a 

controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, 

import, export, distribute, or dispense.”).

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).

As Sarabia concedes, because he did not object in district court to the 

Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement, review is only for plain error. E.g.,

United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995). To demonstrate 

plain error, Sarabia must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and 

that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error,

but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings. Id.

Case: 13-41068 Document: 00513106364 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015
No. 13-41068

3

Sarabia fails to show the requisite clear or obvious error. The

enhancement under Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for Sarabia’s prior conviction 

for a drug-trafficking offense is warranted, regardless of whether the

conviction under Oklahoma law required proof of remuneration or commercial 

activity. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 

2015). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-41068 Document: 00513106364 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2015