Court Opinion

ID: 9369525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 01:00:20.373097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:15.706793
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-11238        Document: 00516639439             Page: 1       Date Filed: 02/08/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                                                                 FILED
                                                                          February 8, 2023
                                        No. 21-11238                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Luis Ricardo Martinez, Jr.,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CR-157-1

   Before Stewart, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Luis Ricardo Martinez, Jr., pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
   convicted felon. After applying a four-level enhancement, the district court
   sentenced Martinez to 37 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a three-
   year term of supervised release. Because the record supports the district
   court’s application of the enhancement, we AFFIRM.
                     I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-11238     Document: 00516639439           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/08/2023

                                    No. 21-11238

          On January 23, 2021, a woman standing outside with her children at
   an apartment complex noticed Martinez and his girlfriend, Gabrielle Kough,
   arguing in the parking lot of a neighboring property. She observed that
   Martinez was holding a shotgun and heard him threatening to shoot people.
   She then heard Martinez tell Kough to “call the police so he could shoot
   them as well.” Alarmed by Martinez’s behavior and statements, the woman
   called 911 and reported the incident to the police.
          When officers arrived, Kough reported that Martinez had woken up
   in a “bad mood” and made statements about people chasing him. She
   explained that Martinez suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia
   and prior to that day, he had been having “mental episodes.” She stated that
   Martinez went to the store but returned more agitated, claiming that people
   were coming after him and he needed to use her car to leave. She tried to
   prevent Martinez from leaving the apartment but was unsuccessful. Kough
   confirmed that once outside in the parking lot, Martinez retrieved a shotgun
   from her car, pointed it at the ground, and continued to shout and argue with
   her. Unable to calm Martinez, Kough retreated to her apartment.
          Martinez sped off in Kough’s car just before officers arrived at the
   scene, so they pursued him. Officers observed Martinez attempt to enter
   another vehicle at a red light before jumping back into Kough’s car, and then
   saw him lose control of the vehicle and crash. Because law enforcement had
   been notified by dispatch that Martinez had a weapon, one of the officers
   approached the crashed vehicle with his weapon drawn and gave verbal
   commands for Martinez to show his hands and step out of the car. The officer
   then saw Martinez begin to make furtive movements inside the vehicle,
   reaching around the front and back seat. The officer continued to give verbal
   commands and Martinez ultimately complied, exited the vehicle, and was

                                         2
Case: 21-11238        Document: 00516639439             Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/08/2023

                                         No. 21-11238

   arrested.1 Officers subsequently conducted a search of the vehicle and a
   broken shotgun, loaded with one unfired shell, was located in plain view on
   the passenger side of the car.2
           In July 2021, Martinez pled guilty, without the benefit of a plea
   agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18
   U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His total offense level of 15 combined
   with his criminal history category of V yielded a recommended guidelines
   range of 37 to 46 months. The calculated guidelines range included a four-
   level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because the
   probation officer concluded that Martinez used or possessed a firearm in
   connection with the felony offense of aggravated assault on grounds that he
   “threaten[ed] to shoot individuals, including police if they were called”
   while holding a firearm.
           Martinez objected to the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement in writing
   and at sentencing arguing that his conduct did not rise to the level of
   aggravated assault. The district court overruled Martinez’s objection and
   sentenced him to 37 months in prison to be followed by a three-year term of
   supervised release. The district court stated that it would have imposed the
   same sentence irrespective of the guidelines based upon Martinez’s criminal
   history and risk of recidivism. It further noted that although this was a
   “textbook case for an upward variance or an upward departure,” it did not
   impose one because it took “pity” on Martinez based on his counsel’s

           1
            According to the record, Martinez sustained a serious head injury as a result of
   the accident.
           2
             Martinez and the vehicle that he crashed matched the description of a suspect
   and a vehicle that were involved in a robbery earlier that same day. Likewise, stolen
   property from that robbery was later recovered in Martinez’s apartment.

                                              3
Case: 21-11238         Document: 00516639439                Page: 4        Date Filed: 02/08/2023

                                            No. 21-11238

   mitigating arguments regarding his history of mental illness and his head
   injury from the crash. Martinez appealed.
                                  II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
           We review the district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo
   and its fact findings for clear error. United States v. Jeffries, 587 F.3d 690, 692
   (5th Cir. 2009). “A district court’s determination that a firearm was used or
   possessed in connection with another felony offense for purposes of U.S.S.G.
   § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is a factual finding that is reviewed for clear error.” United
   States v. Bass, 996 F.3d 729, 742 (5th Cir. 2021).3 “When making factual
   findings at the sentencing stage, a district court may consider any information
   that bears sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.”
   United States v. Hawkins, 866 F.3d 344, 347 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). “A factual finding is not clearly
   erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Jeffries,
   587 F.3d at 692. Moreover, “[w]here there are two permissible views of the
   evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly
   erroneous.” United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir. 2014).
                                        III. DISCUSSION
           On appeal, Martinez argues that the district court clearly erred in
   determining that he committed Texas aggravated assault because he did not

           3
             We have also applied the clear error standard of review in cases involving the
   application of the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement in conjunction with the felony offense of
   Texas aggravated assault. See United States v. Longoria, 713 F. App’x 327, 327–28 (5th Cir.
   2018) (per curiam) (“The evidence supports the conclusion that [the defendant’s] conduct
   in pointing the gun in the direction of the victims and firing it exhibited an intent to threaten
   bodily injury.”); United States v. Jackson, 453 F.3d 302, 304, 307–08 (5th Cir. 2006)
   (concluding there was no clear error in holding that the defendant’s conduct constituted
   Texas aggravated assault where the defendant pushed his girlfriend to the ground,
   brandished a firearm, and fired a shot into the air).

                                                  4
Case: 21-11238      Document: 00516639439            Page: 5    Date Filed: 02/08/2023

                                      No. 21-11238

   threaten his girlfriend or the 911-caller and because he never directly
   threatened the police. We are unpersuaded.
          Under the sentencing guidelines, section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) provides for
   a four-level enhancement when a defendant “use[s] or possesse[s] any
   firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense.”
   “Another felony offense” is defined as “any federal, state, or local
   offense . . . punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,
   regardless of whether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction
   obtained.” § 2K2.1, comment. (n.14(C)). The test for the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
   enhancement depends on the type of other felony alleged. See Jeffries, 587
   F.3d at 692–93. Where the other felony is not a burglary or drug trafficking
   offense, the enhancement applies only “if the firearm . . . facilitated, or had
   the potential of facilitating, that offense.” Id. at 693 (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted).
          Under Texas law, a person commits the felony offense of aggravated
   assault when he “intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
   imminent bodily injury” while “us[ing] or exhibit[ing] a deadly weapon.”
   TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 22.01(a)(2), 22.02(a)(2). This offense requires the
   defendant “to have the specific intent to place any person in fear of imminent
   serious bodily injury.” Bryant v. State, 905 S.W.2d 457, 459 (Tex. App.—
   Waco 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It does not,
   however, “require that the victim or anyone else be actually placed in fear of
   imminent serious bodily injury.” Id. “It is immaterial to the offense whether
   the accused had the capability or the intention to carry out his threat.” Cook
   v. State, 940 S.W.2d 344, 349 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1997). Under Texas law,
   “imminent” is defined as meaning “near at hand; mediate rather than
   immediate; close rather than touching; impending; on the point of
   happening; threatening; menacing; perilous.” Devine v. State, 786 S.W.2d
   268, 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing

                                           5
Case: 21-11238      Document: 00516639439            Page: 6    Date Filed: 02/08/2023

                                      No. 21-11238

   Black’s Law Dictionary 676 (rev. 5th ed. 1979)). The word
   “imminent” is thus construed as requiring “a present and not a future threat
   of harm.” Bryant, 905 S.W.2d at 459.
          Here, the record reveals that Martinez has a lengthy criminal history
   and a violent history of domestic abuse specifically against Kough. According
   to the presentence investigation report, Martinez has beaten Kough,
   threatened her with a knife, threatened her with a bottle, and threatened to
   shoot other individuals who have attempted to intervene and stop Martinez
   from harming Kough. As Kough reported to police, she attempted to stop
   Martinez from leaving her apartment but was unable, and perhaps unwilling,
   to attempt to physically control him and prevent him from leaving. He then
   proceeded to retrieve a deadly weapon, i.e., his shotgun, from her vehicle and
   hold it while arguing with her and threatening to shoot people. He then took
   Kough’s vehicle without her permission and crashed it while being pursued
   by the police. Given these facts, Martinez’s lengthy criminal record, and his
   history of domestic abuse toward Kough, the district court’s determination
   that Martinez committed the felony offense of Texas aggravated assault
   against her is plausible in light of the record. See Jeffries, 587 F.3d at 692; see
   also Jackson, 453 F.3d at 308 (upholding the district court’s application of
   four-level enhancement in § 2K2.1(b)(5) when the defendant fired a pistol
   after pushing his girlfriend during a heated argument concluding that
   although the defendant did “not provide a reason for firing the gun during
   the argument, [] we can discern no reason for doing so other than to threaten
   and intimidate”).
          Likewise, this factual scenario also supports the district court’s
   holding that Martinez committed Texas aggravated assault against the 911-
   caller. Not only was the caller close enough to see Martinez brandishing the
   shotgun, but she was also close enough to hear him threatening to shoot
   people, including the police if they were called. Indeed, the 911-caller, who

                                           6
Case: 21-11238         Document: 00516639439               Page: 7      Date Filed: 02/08/2023

                                           No. 21-11238

   was there with her children, clearly felt threatened because she called the
   police quickly after observing the escalating situation between Martinez and
   Kough. See De Leon v. State, 865 S.W.2d 139, 142 (Tex. App.—Corpus
   Christi–Edinburg 1993) (“The mere presence of a deadly weapon, under
   proper circumstances, can be enough to instill fear and threaten a person with
   bodily injury.”). Given these facts, and Martinez’s history of threatening
   behavior toward Kough, others, and anyone that tried to call the police on
   him, the district court’s holding that Martinez committed the felony offense
   of Texas aggravated assault against the 911-caller is also plausible in light of
   the record. See Jeffries, 587 F.3d at 692.(4)(5)
           For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the district court did not
   err in applying the four-level § 2K2.1 enhancement to Martinez’s sentence
   on grounds that he “used or possessed [a] firearm . . . in connection with”
   the felony offense of Texas aggravated assault. See 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); TEX.
   PENAL CODE §§ 22.01(a)(2), 22.02(a)(2).
                                      IV. CONCLUSION
           Martinez’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

           4
             Moreover, whether Martinez pointed the shotgun directly at Kough or the 911-
   caller while threatening to use the weapon is immaterial as “[t]here is no requirement that
   a perpetrator point a weapon directly at a victim in order to be guilty of Texas aggravated
   assault.” See Longoria, 713 F. App’x at 327 (citing TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 22.01, 22.02; De
   Leon v. State, 865 S.W.2d 139, 142 (Tex. App. 1993)).
           5
            In light of our conclusion that the record supports the district court’s holding that
   Martinez committed Texas aggravated assault against Kough and the 911-caller, we need
   not address the issue of whether Martinez committed aggravated assault against the police.

                                                 7