Court Opinion

ID: 9905737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 01:02:36.935125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.330372
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30075        Document: 00516983333             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                               November 29, 2023
                                      No. 23-30075
                                    Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Chance Joseph Seneca,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 6:21-CR-43-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Chance Joseph Seneca presents two challenges to his 509-months’-
   imprisonment sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for
   kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201: the court erred in applying a
   Guideline § 3A1.1(a) enhancement (“intentionally selected . . . victim”
   because of actual or perceived characteristics, including gender or sexual

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30075      Document: 00516983333           Page: 2     Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                     No. 23-30075

   orientation) because he harbored no hatred or animus toward a person’s
   gender or sexual orientation and, in the alternative, because there is
   insufficient evidence he intentionally selected a victim based on such
   orientation;    and   his   above-Guidelines      sentence    is   substantively
   unreasonable.
          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, as in this instance, 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).
          Seneca’s procedural challenges are unavailing because the
   Government shows that, even if Guideline § 3A1.1(a) was applied in error,
   the error was harmless. As Seneca states correctly, “it is not enough for the
   district court to say the same sentence would have been imposed but for the
   error”. United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347, 353 (5th Cir. 2017). Here,
   the court considered the applicable Guidelines sentencing range both with
   and without the challenged enhancement and affirmed it would give the same
   sentence either way. See United States v. Guzman-Rendon, 864 F.3d 409, 411
   (5th Cir. 2017) (explaining harmless error is shown when “the district court
   considered both ranges (the one now found incorrect and the one now
   deemed correct) and explained that it would give the same sentence either
   way”).

                                          2
Case: 23-30075       Document: 00516983333          Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                     No. 23-30075

            In asserting his sentence is substantively unreasonable, Seneca claims
   the court: overlooked important mitigating evidence; and the factors it
   invoked do not justify its upward variance.
            The court reviewed Seneca’s sentencing memorandum and his
   objections to the presentence investigation report, listened to his statement
   and the contentions of his counsel at sentencing, and acknowledged the
   presence of mitigating factors. The court decided, however, countervailing
   factors made its sentence appropriate. Seneca does not show the sentence
   failed to “account for a factor that should have received significant weight”.
   United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Even if our court
   agreed with Seneca that the court should have given greater weight to
   mitigating factors, this “is not a sufficient ground for reversal”. United States
   v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). Nor was it error for the court to
   “rely upon factors already incorporated by the Guidelines to support a non-
   Guidelines sentence”. United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir.
   2008).
            AFFIRMED.

                                           3