Court Opinion

ID: 9368321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 19:00:37.17378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.023875
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50150         Document: 00516634273             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/03/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50150
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               February 3, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Victor Gerardo Villegas,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:19-CR-2126-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Victor Gerardo Villegas appeals his sentence following a jury trial
   conviction for one count of conspiring to import 1,000 kilograms of
   marijuana. He argues that the district court penalized him for exercising his
   right to go to trial. Villegas relies on statements made by the district court at

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50150      Document: 00516634273            Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                      No. 22-50150

   the sentencing hearing and the disparity between his sentence and those
   received by his co-conspirators.
          Villegas argues this issue is subject to de novo review in light of United
   States v. Molina, No. 20-11232, 2022 WL 3971588 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2022),
   cert. denied, No. 22-6209, 2023 WL 124369 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2023). The
   Government acknowledges Molina but insists plain error review applies
   because Villegas failed to object to the purported error in the district court.
   See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009). There is no need to
   determine the appropriate standard of review because Villegas’s claim fails
   even under the more lenient standard of review. We explain.
          The Sixth Amendment provides in part that “[i]n all criminal
   prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”
   U.S. Const. amend. VI. “To punish a person because he has done what
   the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic
   sort.” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978). Accordingly, “a
   defendant cannot be punished by a more severe sentence because he
   unsuccessfully exercises his constitutional right to stand trial.” United States
   v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 1338 (5th Cir. 1991).
          Villegas fails to show that the district court factored Villegas’s
   decision not to plead guilty into its sentencing decision, let alone that it
   punished Villegas more severely than it otherwise would have because he went
   to trial. See Gozes-Wagner, 977 F.3d at 334–37. Furthermore, Villegas fails
   to identify any similarly situated co-conspirator whose sentence is
   appropriate to compare to Villegas’s sentence for purposes of determining
   whether Villegas was punished more severely because he went to trial. See
   id. at 36–37. Villegas thus has failed to show that the district court imposed
   an unconstitutional trial penalty on him at sentencing and has failed to show
   any abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED.

                                           2