Court Opinion

ID: 9949262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-10 18:00:32.127823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:20.861331
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10323           Document: 65-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/10/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-10323
                                 Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                 ____________                                March 10, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Daniel Loyola, Jr.,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:22-CR-356-1
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Daniel Loyola, Jr., challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-
months’ sentence for possession of a machinegun, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(o) (“[I]t shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a
machinegun”.), 924(a)(2) (outlining penalties).

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10323        Document: 65-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/10/2024

                                  No. 23-10323

       Loyola first asserts § 922(o) is unconstitutional because machineguns
are protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text, and § 922(o) conflicts
with our Country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. See New York
State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022) (announcing new
rule for assessing whether regulation infringes Second Amendment).
       Loyola (as he concedes) did not preserve his constitutional claim in
district court. Because he failed to do so, review is only for plain error. E.g.,
United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that
standard, Loyola 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. (citation omitted).
       In Hollis v. Lynch, our court concluded that machineguns are not
protected by the Second Amendment. 827 F.3d 436, 447–51 (5th Cir. 2016).
Loyola asserts Bruen’s new analysis mandates a different outcome. On plain-
error review, “[Loyola] need not show that [his] specific challenge has been
addressed in a prior decision, []he must at least show error in the
straightforward applications of existing cases”. United States v. Sanches, 86
F.4th 680, 688 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).           He does neither.
Accordingly, he fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error. See, e.g.,
United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573–74 (5th Cir. 2023) (“Arguments that
require the extension of existing precedent cannot meet the plain error
standard.”).
       Second, Loyola contends the court erred by applying the
enhancement under Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2021) (trafficking
firearms) because the commentary requires that he knew, or had reason to

                                       2
Case: 23-10323          Document: 65-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/10/2024

                                   No. 23-10323

know, two or more of the firearms he transferred would be used unlawfully.
See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.13 (2021). He asserts: the court’s interpretation
of the Guideline commentary conflicts with the plain language of the
Guideline; and the court clearly erred in its finding Loyola knew or had
reason to know a second firearm he transferred would be used unlawfully.
See id.
          Although post-Booker, the 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 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). We turn to the factual finding first.
          The court’s factual finding is supported by: Loyola’s admitting he
attempted to purchase the machinegun for transfer to someone he knew was
affiliated with a Mexican narcotics cartel; the nature of his dealings with that
person; and the number of other weapons he purchased for that person. See
United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246, 252 (5th Cir. 2010) (“There is
considerable evidence from which the district court could infer that
[defendant] knew or had reason to believe that [defendant’s] conduct would
result in the transport, transfer, or disposal of a firearm to an individual who
intended to use or dispose of the firearm unlawfully.”). Accordingly, Loyola
fails to show the requisite clear error. E.g., United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d
287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006) (“We will uphold a district court’s factual finding
on clear error review so long as the enhancement is plausible in light of the
record as a whole.”).

                                         3
Case: 23-10323        Document: 65-1        Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/10/2024

                                  No. 23-10323

       We need not address Loyola’s Guideline-application contention
because, even under his proposed interpretation of the relevant Guideline
language, the court’s finding he engaged in trafficking multiple firearms was
plausible in the light of the whole record and, therefore, the court did not err
in applying the four-level enhancement pursuant to Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(5)
(2021).
       In any event, any error regarding this issue was harmless in the light
of the court’s Statement of Reasons showing its intent to impose the same
sentence irrespective of any calculation error. See, e.g., United States v.
Garcia, 647 F. App’x 408, 410 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Because the district court
stated in its Statement of Reasons that ‘[e]ven if the guidelines calculations
are not correct, this is the sentence the Court would otherwise impose under
18 U.S.C. § 3553,’ the Government has made the required showing.”
(alteration in original) (citation omitted)).
       AFFIRMED.

                                        4