Court Opinion

ID: 9966319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 18:00:39.289944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:46.919442
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50529            Document: 68-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/06/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-50529
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                     May 6, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Xavier Angelo Hernandez,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 6:19-CR-258-1
                   ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Xavier Angelo Hernandez pleaded guilty to: conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846
(prohibiting conspiracy), 841(a)(1) (prohibiting possession with intent to
distribute), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (setting penalty); and possession of a firearm
during the commission of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50529         Document: 68-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                   No. 23-50529

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He challenges his § 924(c) conviction and his below-
Guidelines 300-months’ sentence.
         Hernandez first makes two challenges to his § 924(c) conviction: his
guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the court did not advise
him on all elements of the offense; and the factual basis was insufficient to
support his guilty plea on that charge. Because Hernandez did not preserve
these issues in district court, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States
v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012).
         Under that standard, Hernandez must show a forfeited plain error
(clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that
affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the
reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s]
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.
(citation omitted).
         Regarding Hernandez’ knowing-and-voluntary challenge, Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires the district court to “inform the
defendant of . . . the nature of each charge to which the defendant is
pleading”. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G). This rule “does not require the
district court to explicate the specific elements of each charge”. United
States v. Santiago, No. 23-30149, 2024 WL 1205473, at *4 (5th Cir. 21 Mar.
2024).
         “Although there are no precise guidelines as to what is sufficient to
meet this standard, the court must have a colloquy with the defendant that
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the defendant understood the
nature of the charge.” Id. (citation omitted). Our court has held: “a reading
of the indictment, followed by an opportunity given [to] the defendant to ask
questions about it, will usually suffice to inform the defendant of the nature

                                        2
Case: 23-50529       Document: 68-1        Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                 No. 23-50529

of the charge”. United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d 440, 444 (5th Cir.
2000) (citation omitted).
       Hernandez does not show the requisite clear or obvious error in the
court’s concluding his plea was knowing and voluntary. The superseding
indictment was read to him and the court repeatedly asked whether he
understood the nature of the offenses. Hernandez stated he understood the
charges and did not have any questions concerning them. See id.; Blackledge
v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a
strong presumption of verity.”). Further, the court advised Hernandez of:
the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty; the nature of the
offenses; and the maximum possible penalty for each offense. See United
States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361, 366 (5th Cir. 2014) (explaining
defendant must understand consequences of plea and nature of
constitutional protections waived); United States v. Scott, 857 F.3d 241, 245
(5th Cir. 2017) (emphasizing defendant must be aware of maximum penalty).
       Section 924(c) prohibits possession of a firearm “in furtherance” of a
crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). To the
extent Hernandez contests the factual basis of the “in furtherance” element,
he again does not show the requisite clear or obvious error. This element
requires more than a firearm’s mere presence; it must “further, advance, or
help a drug trafficking” crime. United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409,
412 (5th Cir. 2000). “In assessing factual sufficiency under the plain error
standard, we may look beyond those facts admitted by the defendant during
the plea colloquy and scan the entire record for facts supporting his
conviction.” United States v. Ortiz, 927 F.3d 868, 872–73 (5th Cir. 2019)
(citation omitted). The presentence investigation report stated that, during
a traffic stop, officers discovered in Hernandez’ vehicle: two large bags of a
crystal substance, two digital scales, sandwich bags, marihuana, synthetic
marihuana, a stolen .40 caliber handgun, and money. See Ceballos-Torres, 218

                                       3
Case: 23-50529         Document: 68-1       Page: 4     Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                   No. 23-50529

F.3d at 415 (affirming § 924(c) conviction where “weapon was loaded and
easily accessible in [defendant]’s apartment . . . along with a substantial
amount of drugs and money”). Hernandez also frequently made social-
media posts displaying marihuana, money, and several firearms.
       Further, we will not consider Hernandez’ contention, raised for the
first time in his reply brief, that the above analysis is altered by New York State
Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). See, e.g., United States v.
Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[T]his Court will not
ordinarily consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief”.).
       Regarding his sentence, Hernandez asserts the court procedurally
erred and he contests the sentence’s substantive reasonableness. Although
post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the district court
must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51
(2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to
an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez,
564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). 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).
       Hernandez asserts the court erred in imposing various sentencing
enhancements.       Although counsel filed written objections to these
enhancements, counsel expressly waived them at the sentencing hearing.
Hernandez’ challenges to the sentence enhancements are, therefore, not
reviewable. See, e.g., United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 295–96 (5th Cir.
2022) (explaining plain-error review applies to forfeitures, not waivers).

                                        4
Case: 23-50529       Document: 68-1       Page: 5   Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                No. 23-50529

      In challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence,
Hernandez has not presented any meaningful assertion and has also failed to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded to below-Guidelines
sentences. See, e.g., United States v. Sifuentes, 945 F.3d 865, 869 (5th Cir.
2019) (identifying presumption and avenue for rebuttal).
       AFFIRMED.

                                      5