Opinion ID: 176543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clearly Erroneous Facts

Text: Cruz contends that the district court committed procedural error by relying on the clearly erroneous facts that Cruz had been deported before 2006 and had been in the United States since then, committing crimes and shirking his child-support responsibilities. As Cruz attempted to correct the district court when it appeared to be relying on an incorrect deportation date, we look to see if the facts relied on by the district court were clearly erroneous, rather than plainly erroneous.8 Cruz was not deported until 2006, yet the district court stated incorrectly that “this man was in the United States [committing crimes in 2000, 2003, and 2005] when he had already been deported.” The district court again disregarded the correct deportation date when it incorrectly found that 3 Id. 4 See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2009). 5 Id. at 753. 6 Id. 7 See United States v. Gutierrez-Hernandez, 581 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2009). 8 See United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir. 1993). 4 Case: 09-50491 Document: 00511252830 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/04/2010 No. 09-50491 Cruz had been evading his child-support obligations while he was in the United States. These are clearly erroneous determinations of the facts. The Presentence Report shows that Cruz had been deported in 2006, had not returned to the United States before he was picked up for illegal reentry in 2008, and did not stop paying child support until 2006, when he was deported. The government cannot bear its burden of showing that these clear errors were harmless. Granted, the district court listed numerous reasons for imposing an above-guideline sentence, chief among which were Cruz’s violent criminal history and repeated flaunting of United States law. The government calls the court’s reference to the child-support arrearage “more of an observation, than a basis for a section 3553 sentence.” Contrary to that assertion, the fact that child support and the deportation date were not mentioned in the court’s final summary is not dispositive of this issue. The district court appeared to rely, to a considerable extent, on the mistaken facts that (1) Cruz had been in the country illegally for an extended period of time and (2) he had failed to pay child support while he was in the United States earning money. It is unavailing for the government to claim that this was not a primary motivation behind the sentence. The government had to show that this mistake by the district court had no effect on the length of the sentence. As it has not met this burden, we conclude that the sentencing court’s procedural error was not harmless.