IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10164

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISRAEL ENRIQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-216-11

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Israel Enriquez appeals the 360-month sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a 

controlled substance. He argues that the district court committed a clear or 

obvious error that affected his substantial rights by miscalculating his 

advisory guidelines range of imprisonment and imposing a sentence within 

that range. 

 

* 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 25, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10164 Document: 00515049920 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2019
No. 18-10164

2

Because Enriquez failed to object in the district court to the calculation 

of his base offense level or the sentence imposed, the challenge to the 

procedural reasonableness of his sentence that he raises on appeal was not 

preserved and is reviewed for plain error only. See United States 

v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2009). To prevail on plain 

error review, Enriquez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and 

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

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

but will do so “only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets, 

and citations omitted).

It is undisputed that the quantities of methamphetamine (not actual) 

were erroneously calculated and that, as a result, the marijuana equivalency 

for those drug quantities was also miscalculated, resulting in an incorrectly 

calculated base offense level and guidelines sentencing range. Thus, as the 

Government concedes, Enriquez has shown a forfeited error that is clear or 

obvious and has thus satisfied the first two prongs of the plain error analysis. 

See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

To satisfy the third prong of the plain error analysis, “the defendant 

ordinarily ‘must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the 

outcome of the proceeding would have been different.’” United States v. 

Randall, 924 F.3d 790, 796 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Molina-Martinez v. United 

States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Absent the mathematical error, Enriquez’s total offense level would have been 

reduced from 39 to 37, and his guidelines range would have been 292 to 365 

months of imprisonment instead of 360 to 480 months of imprisonment. While 

an error that results in a higher guidelines range “usually establishes a 

 Case: 18-10164 Document: 00515049920 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2019
No. 18-10164

3

reasonable probability that a defendant will serve a prison sentence that is 

more than necessary to fulfill the purposes of incarceration,” Randall, 924 F.3d 

at 796 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), that fact is not 

dispositive of whether the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. 

Rather, “[a] defendant may not carry his plain error burden . . . if the 

sentencing court nevertheless concluded the chosen sentence was appropriate 

regardless of the correct Guidelines range or the sentence was based on factors 

independent of the Guidelines.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

In this case, the district court not only concluded that a 360-month 

sentence was appropriate even if the guidelines range was wrong but also 

stated that the sentence was appropriate based on the factors set forth in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Under the circumstances, there is no reason to believe

that the court would have imposed any sentence other than the chosen 

sentence absent the mathematical error. 

Enriquez has not satisfied his burden of showing that the forfeited clear 

error affected his substantial rights. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Randall, 

924 F.3d at 796. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-10164 Document: 00515049920 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/25/2019