Court Opinion

ID: 9391036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 00:00:45.777375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.064310
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40606         Document: 00516731729             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/28/2023

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

                                       No. 22-40606
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                   April 28, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Victor Yazmani Luna,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:19-CR-1296-4
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Victor Yazmani Luna was resentenced after this court affirmed his
   conviction for aiding and abetting kidnapping but vacated another conviction
   and both of his original sentences. On remand, the district court sentenced
   Luna to a below-guidelines term of 304 months in prison, which represents
   an increase from the original sentence for the kidnapping count but a decrease

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40606       Document: 00516731729           Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/28/2023

                                      No. 22-40606

   from the original total sentence. Luna now appeals his new sentence on two
   grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm.
            Luna first contends that the district court lacked authority to increase
   the term of imprisonment imposed for the kidnapping. However, he fails to
   identify any clear basis for this contention. Luna does not argue that the
   district court acted beyond the scope of the mandate on remand. See United
   States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2004). Nor does he show that the
   court’s authority to impose a lawful sentence was otherwise constrained.
   This argument accordingly fails.
            The remaining issue is whether the district court erred by applying an
   enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5. As Luna acknowledges, our review is
   for plain error only. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To
   establish plain error, a defendant must show (1) an error (2) that is clear or
   obvious and (3) that affected his substantial rights. Id. Because we conclude
   that Luna fails to make the required showing, we do not address the
   Government’s argument that he forfeited this issue by failing to raise it in his
   initial appeal. See United States v. Stanford, 883 F.3d 500, 504-05 (5th Cir.
   2018).
            Luna contends that § 3B1.5 is inapplicable because federal kidnapping
   is not a “crime of violence.” An application note defines that term for
   purposes of § 3B1.5 by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 16. § 3B1.5, comment. (n.1).
   Luna does not dispute that federal kidnapping falls within the crime-of-
   violence definition at § 16(b), and he fails to show that use of that definition
   is plainly erroneous here. See United States v. Godoy, 890 F.3d 531, 540 (5th
   Cir. 2018). Thus, he has not carried his burden of showing that any error was
   clear or obvious. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
            AFFIRMED.

                                               2