Court Opinion

ID: 9352126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 01:00:19.816245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:58:01.414031
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-40505        Document: 00516597909             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/04/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                    FILED
                                                                               January 4, 2023
                                      No. 19-40505
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                     Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Oscar Manuel Hernandez-Alcantar,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:18-CR-1884-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Oscar Manuel Hernandez-Alcantar pleaded guilty to importing 500
   grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
   methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1),
   960(b)(1)(H) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.              He challenges his below-Guidelines
   sentence of 150-months’ imprisonment.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 19-40505      Document: 00516597909          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/04/2023

                                    No. 19-40505

          Hernandez, a citizen of Mexico, was stopped by border patrol agents
   when he attempted to drive into the United States from Mexico through the
   Pharr, Texas, Port of Entry. Agents inspected his vehicle and discovered 12
   packages of narcotics concealed inside.          Hernandez initially denied
   knowledge of the drugs, but he later signed a statement acknowledging he
   knew he was transporting a controlled substance. The Drug Enforcement
   Administration determined the vehicle contained 4,833 grams of 89%-pure
   methamphetamine “ice” and 1,988 grams of cocaine.
          Under the Sentencing Guidelines, when different controlled
   substances are involved in a single offense, the “converted drug weight” of
   those substances is calculated using the Drug Conversion Tables, in order to
   determine a single offense level. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.8(B). The net
   weight of methamphetamine “ice” receives a one-gram-to-20-kilograms
   multiplier in calculating the converted drug weight. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt.
   n.8(D). The presentence investigation report (PSR) applied this multiplier
   in reaching Hernandez’ recommended advisory Guidelines range of 168–210
   months’ imprisonment. The court adopted the PSR and applied a downward
   departure to reach its above-described sentence of 150 months.
          Hernandez asserts his advisory range would have been 87–108
   months’ imprisonment if the converted weight was calculated based on a
   methamphetamine mixture, rather than methamphetamine “ice”. He
   contends: application of the multiplier is inconsistent with his indictment;
   therefore, he was punished for an offense he was not charged with or
   admitted to, in violation of his due-process rights.
          Hernandez did not raise this issue in district court (as he concedes).
   Because this issue was not preserved 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, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious

                                          2
Case: 19-40505      Document: 00516597909           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/04/2023

                                     No. 19-40505

   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, our court has 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).
          “The choice of which multiplier to use is not determined by the
   language of the indictment.” United States v. Molina, 469 F.3d 408, 414 (5th
   Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Aparicio, 963 F.3d 470, 475 (5th Cir.
   2020). Rather, the Guidelines direct that, “even if the indictment alleges
   possession of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine . . . the
   court [should] apply the offense level determined by the weight of pure
   methamphetamine in the mixture or substance if doing so would result in a
   higher offense level”. Molina, 469 F.3d at 414.
          Further, “[a]n indictment must allege only the essential elements of
   an offense”. Aparicio, 963 F.3d at 475 (citation omitted). “Because the fact
   that the methamphetamine involved in [Hernandez’] offense was ‘ice’ does
   not affect the statutory penalty for his crime, that fact is not an ‘element’ of
   the offense.” Id. (citation omitted). Hernandez pleaded guilty to an offense
   involving “500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a
   detectable amount of methamphetamine”, which is punishable by ten years
   to life in prison. 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(H).
          Accordingly, Hernandez fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious
   error in applying the “ice” multiplier to arrive at a higher offense level than
   application of the mixture’s multiplier would have. E.g., Molina, 469 F.3d at
   414; Aparicio, 963 F.3d at 475.
          Additionally, relying on McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186
   (2015) (holding a 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) conviction requires Government to

                                          3
Case: 19-40505       Document: 00516597909         Page: 4      Date Filed: 01/04/2023

                                    No. 19-40505

   prove “defendant knew he was dealing with a ‘controlled substance’”),
   Hernandez contends the factual basis accompanying his plea was insufficient
   to satisfy the knowledge element of his offense.
            He maintains he preserved this challenge by objecting to a two-level
   enhancement under Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(5) recommended by the PSR.
   Because in district court he “did not raise a challenge to the adequacy of the
   factual basis underlying [his] guilty plea”, he failed to preserve this issue;
   therefore, review is again only for plain error. United States v. Marek, 238
   F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc). When reviewing a guilty plea’s
   factual basis for plain error, our court may “consider the entire record”.
   United States v. Ortiz, 927 F.3d 868, 873 (5th Cir. 2019).
            Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires a court to “make
   certain that the factual conduct admitted by the defendant is sufficient as a
   matter of law to establish a violation of the statute to which he entered his
   plea”. United States v. Escajeda, 8 F.4th 423, 426 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation
   omitted). Hernandez’ importation offense required establishing: (1) he
   “played a role” in importing a controlled substance; (2) he “knew the
   substance was controlled”; and (3) he “knew the substance would enter the
   United States”. United States v. Zamora-Salazar, 860 F.3d 826, 832 (5th Cir.
   2017) (citation omitted).
            Hernandez admitted several times in district court that he knew he
   was transporting a controlled substance into the United States. The record
   contains additional circumstantial evidence that he knew his vehicle
   contained illegal drugs. Again, he fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious
   error.
            AFFIRMED.

                                          4