Court Opinion

ID: 9407436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 00:00:31.52373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.366395
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10667         Document: 00516811862             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10667
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                     July 6, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Angel Aguilar Montalvo,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CR-13-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          For his guilty-plea conviction, Angel Aguilar Montalvo challenges his
   240-months’ prison sentence for receipt of child pornography, in violation of
   18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1). He challenges the court’s: two-level
   enhancement under Sentencing Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(6) for use of a
   computer; and non-application of a two-level reduction under Guideline §

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10667       Document: 00516811862          Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/06/2023

                                     No. 22-10667

   2G2.2(b)(1), which applies when defendant’s conduct was limited to receipt
   or solicitation. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(1), (b)(6).
          Because Montalvo is raising different objections on appeal to the
   enhancement and lack of reduction than he raised in district court, review is
   only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th
   Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Montalvo must show a forfeited plain error
   (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that
   affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
   (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the
   reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s]
   the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. For
   the reasons that follow, the claims fail under plain-error review. (Even if the
   issues had been preserved in district court, we would still affirm.)
          The district court did not commit the requisite clear-or-obvious error
   in applying § 2G2.2(b)(6). As Montalvo concedes, our court has foreclosed
   his assertion that the use of a computer enhancement is inappropriate based
   on its broad application; he presents this issue only to preserve it for possible
   further review. United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 122–23 (5th Cir. 2011)
   (rejecting similar challenge to § 2G2.2(b)(6) enhancement when defendant
   “attack[ed] the policies and rationale that underpin the Guidelines” because
   “[t]he Guidelines remain the Guidelines, and district courts must take them
   into account”).
          Likewise, the court did not commit clear-or-obvious error in
   concluding § 2G2.2(b)(1) does not apply. Although Montalvo claims his
   conduct was limited to receipt of child pornography without intent to
   distribute, he both transported and edited child pornography.              See §
   2G2.2(b)(1) & n.1 (distinguishing simple possession from other types of
   activity categorized as “distribution” which is “any act, including possession

                                           2
Case: 22-10667      Document: 00516811862          Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/06/2023

                                    No. 22-10667

   with intent to distribute, production, transmission, advertisement, and
   transportation, related to the transfer of material involving the sexual
   exploitation of a minor”).
          As for his assertion that the language of § 2G2.2(b)(1) does not
   include conduct grouped with receipt of child pornography, this matter is
   abandoned for inadequate briefing. E.g., United States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d
   428, 439–40, 440 n.10 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining that, where appellant does
   not fully explain his argument or cite the record or relevant law, he has
   abandoned issue by failing to adequately brief it).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3