Court Opinion

ID: 9388232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 14:00:52.02724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:18.968245
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12467   Document: 30-1    Date Filed: 04/20/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12467
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       JUAN MELVIN DUPRE-PENA,
       a.k.a. Juan M. Pena,
       a.k.a. Wilberto Class,
       a.k.a. Adriano Pena Pena,

                                                Defendant-Appellant.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12467     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/20/2023    Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12467

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-20563-DPG-1
                           ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, ANDERSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Defendant Juan Dupre-Pena appeals his 24-month sentence
       for illegal reentry into the United States after removal in violation
       of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, Defendant claims the
       sentencing judge unlawfully applied a 10-level increase pursuant to
       USSG § 2L1.2(b)(3), a provision he argues is unconstitutional. As
       explained below, Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by binding
       circuit precedent. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.
                                BACKGROUND
              Defendant Juan Dupre-Pena, a citizen and native of the Do-
       minican Republic, illegally entered the United States more than 30
       years ago at an unknown location. He was removed from the
       United States to the Dominican Republic in 1991 after completing
       a 2-year sentence in Massachusetts for unlawful distribution of co-
       caine. A few years later, Defendant used an alias to reenter the
       United States with an immigrant visa. He was removed from the
       United States a second time in 2004 after completing another sen-
       tence in Massachusetts for cocaine distribution and trafficking.
       Within a few months of his second removal, Defendant again reen-
       tered the United States using an alias. In 2016, he was removed
USCA11 Case: 22-12467      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/20/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-12467               Opinion of the Court                         3

       from the United States to the Dominican Republic a third time after
       serving a 5-year sentence for distributing cocaine.
               Defendant was arrested in Miami in May 2019 for cocaine
       trafficking, having once again reentered the United States after be-
       ing removed multiple times. Following his arrest, Defendant was
       indicted and pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry after re-
       moval in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The PSR as-
       signed Defendant a base offense level of 8 under USSG § 2L1.2(a).
       Citing Defendant’s most recent conviction for distributing cocaine,
       which occurred after his first removal from the United States and
       resulted in a sentence of 5 years or more, the PSR recommended a
       10-level increase pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(3)(A). Factoring in
       a 2-level deduction for acceptance of responsibility, the PSR set De-
       fendant’s total offense at 15, yielding a recommended guidelines
       range of 24 to 30 months.
              At sentencing, Defendant agreed with the calculation in the
       PSR, but he objected to the 10-level increase applied under USSG
       § 2L1.2(b)(3)(A) on the ground that the provision “double counts”
       a defendant’s criminal history category and offense level. Defense
       counsel clarified during the sentencing hearing that this argument
       was foreclosed by Eleventh Circuit precedent and that he had filed
       the objection only to preserve it for the record in case the issue was
       revisited by this Court. The Government requested a sentence at
       the high end of the guidelines range, noting that Defendant had
       been deported three times since the early 1990s, only to return to
       commit more crimes in the United States. The district court
USCA11 Case: 22-12467      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/20/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12467

       sentenced Defendant to 24 months, the low end of the recom-
       mended guidelines range, to be followed by 3 years of supervised
       release.
              Defendant appeals, reasserting his argument that USSG
       § 2L1.2(b)(3) is unconstitutional. Defendant admits that he is sub-
       ject to the 10-level increase provided for in § 2L1.2(b)(3)(A) based
       on his conviction of a felony offense in 2011, after his unauthorized
       reentry into the United States, that resulted in a sentence of 5 years.
       But he argues that the increase violated his equal protection and
       due process rights because it resulted in a double counting of the
       2011 conviction, for which Defendant also received 3 criminal his-
       tory points under the guidelines.
                                  DISCUSSION
              As Defendant acknowledged at sentencing and concedes on
       appeal, his argument that USSG § 2L1.2(b)(3) is unconstitutional
       because it double counts his 2011 felony conviction for purposes of
       his criminal history points and 10-level enhancement is foreclosed
       by binding Eleventh Circuit precedent. See United States v.
       Osorto, 995 F.3d 801, 823–24 (11th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.
       Ct. 470 (Nov. 8, 2021). In Osorto, this Court expressly rejected that
       very argument, holding that USSG § 2L1.2(b)(3) does “not violate
       the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection” nor does it
       “cause unlawful double-counting in violation of due process or oth-
       erwise.” Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-12467     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/20/2023    Page: 5 of 5

       22-12467               Opinion of the Court                        5

             Osorto is materially indistinguishable from this case, and
       thus controlling here. This Court has consistently reaffirmed its
       ruling in Osorto as to the constitutionality of USSG § 2L1.2(b)(3)
       and the Supreme Court has declined to address the issue. See
       United States v. Huerta-Carranza, 2022 WL 1640701, at *3 (11th
       Cir. May 24, 2022) (reaffirming Osorto), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 611
       (Jan. 9, 2023); United States v. Bonilla-Diaz, 2023 WL 111054, at *3
       (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023) (same). Accordingly, we are bound by the
       prior panel precedent rule to reject the argument asserted by De-
       fendant on appeal and to affirm his sentence. See United States v.
       Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Under [the prior
       panel precedent] rule, a prior panel’s holding is binding on all sub-
       sequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the
       point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sit-
       ting en banc.”).
                                 CONCLUSION
             For the reasons discussed above, we AFFIRM Defendant’s
       sentence.