Court Opinion

ID: 9965530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 18:00:41.917238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:10.223657
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50069       Document: 103-1         Page: 1   Date Filed: 05/02/2024

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

                             ____________                                   FILED
                                                                         May 2, 2024
                              No. 23-50069                             Lyle W. Cayce
                             ____________                                   Clerk

United States of America,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                    versus

Jesus Armando Rodriguez,

                                        Defendant—Appellant.
               ______________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Western District of Texas
                        USDC No. 5:21-CR-139-1
               ______________________________

Before Jones, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Defendant–Appellant Jesus Armando Rodriguez pleaded guilty to
four counts of purchasing firearms by false statement, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Rodriguez appeals the 60-month sentence the district
court imposed. Because the district court plainly erred by applying an

       _____________________
       *
         Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-50069      Document: 103-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                 No. 23-50069

elevated base offense level under § 2K2.1(a)(6) of the Sentencing Guidelines,
we VACATE Rodriguez’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing.
                                     I. Facts
       The factual basis for Rodriguez’s conviction is undisputed. While
Rodriguez, a United States citizen, was in Mexico, Mario Garza approached
him and offered to pay him to purchase firearms in the United States. After
agreeing to do so, Rodriguez was given a cellphone and told that an individual
known only as “El Negro” would contact him about purchasing firearms.
Rodriguez purchased at least 140 firearms for El Negro over two years from
a gun store in Bandera, Texas. As part of each purchase, Rodriguez affirmed
on ATF Form 4473 that he was the actual purchaser of the firearms. He
would then place the firearms under a bush at a highway rest area north of
Laredo, Texas.    Garza paid Rodriguez $200 for each firearm that he
purchased and delivered to the designated area.
       ATF agents eventually uncovered this straw-buyer scheme, and
Rodriguez was indicted on four counts of purchasing firearms by false
statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). He pleaded guilty to and
was convicted of all four counts. The district court sentenced Rodriguez to
a prison term of 60 months, departing downward from the advisory
Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months. Rodriguez appealed his sentence.
                                II. Discussion
       On appeal, Rodriguez challenges the district court’s application of,
first, an elevated base offense level under Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(6) (for
transferring firearms to a “prohibited person”) and, second, a sentencing
enhancement under Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(5) (for trafficking firearms).
Because we conclude that the district court plainly erred by applying the
elevated base offense level, we do not address whether it also erred by

                                          2
Case: 23-50069        Document: 103-1        Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                   No. 23-50069

applying the sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d
360, 377 n.62 (5th Cir. 2005).
       Section 2K2.1(a)(6) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for
application of an elevated base offense level of 14 if the defendant “is
convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) . . . and committed the offense with
knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that the offense would result in the
transfer of a firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person.” U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(a)(6)(C). The Guidelines define a “prohibited person” as “any
person described in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) or § 922(n).” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt.
n.3. Sections 922(g) and 922(n) prohibit certain classes of people—including
felons, those indicted for a felony, unlawful users of controlled substances,
and illegal aliens—from possessing, transporting, or receiving guns that have
been shipped in interstate commerce.
       Rodriguez is correct that the government failed to meet its burden of
proving that he bought the firearms in question with knowledge or reason to
believe that they would be transferred to a “prohibited person.” Nothing in
the record demonstrates that Garza, El Negro, or any other potential
recipient of the firearms were part of one of the classes of people whose
firearm rights are restricted under § 922(g) and § 922(n).               Nothing,
therefore, establishes that Rodriguez knew or had reason to believe that he
was transferring firearms to a prohibited person, and the elevated base
offense level under Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(6) does not apply.
       The government does not attempt to argue otherwise on appeal. It
argues only that, even if the district court erred by applying the elevated base
offense level, Rodriguez is not entitled to relief because he has failed to satisfy
the third and fourth prongs of plain-error review. We disagree.
       Plain-error review applies because Rodriguez did not object to the
district court’s calculation of his base offense level during sentencing. Fed.

                                            3
Case: 23-50069        Document: 103-1        Page: 4     Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                   No. 23-50069

R. Crim. P. 52(b). This court “may not correct an error the defendant
failed to raise in the district court unless there is (1) error, (2) that is plain,
and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez,
821 F.3d 659, 662 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). If all three conditions are met, this court “may then exercise []
discretion to notice a forfeited error but only if (4) the error seriously affects
the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at
663 (citation omitted).
       Contrary to the government’s arguments, Rodriguez has satisfied
both the third and the fourth prong of plain-error review. As to the third
prong, the district court’s error affected Rodriguez’s substantial rights by
subjecting him to a higher advisory Guidelines range. “In most cases a
defendant who has shown that the district court mistakenly deemed
applicable an incorrect, higher Guidelines range has demonstrated a
reasonable probability of a different outcome.” Molina-Martinez v. United
States, 578 U.S. 189, 200, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1346 (2016). And the government
has not shown that this case involves “unusual circumstances” that warrant
departing from this general rule; it has shown neither that the “district court
thought the sentence it chose was appropriate irrespective of the Guidelines
range” nor that the district court “based the sentence [it] selected on factors
independent of the Guidelines.” Id. at 200–01, 136 S. Ct. at 1346–47.
       As to the fourth prong, the government, in one conclusory sentence,
contends that application of the elevated base offense level did not seriously
affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. We
disagree. “The mere fact that [Rodriguez’s] sentence falls within the
corrected Guidelines range does not preserve the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of the proceedings.” See Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S.

                                            4
Case: 23-50069           Document: 103-1           Page: 5       Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                        No. 23-50069

129, 144, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1910 (2018).1 And the government has not
identified any “countervailing factors” showing that the “fairness, integrity,
and public reptation of the proceedings will be preserved absent correction”
of the district court’s error. Id. at 142, 138 S. Ct. at 1909.
        The district court plainly erred by applying an elevated base offense
level of 14 under Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(6). It instead should have applied the
default base offense level of 12. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(7).
                                  III. Conclusion
        We VACATE Rodriguez’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing
without application of Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(6)’s elevated base offense level.
It is in the district court’s discretion to decide whether to apply the trafficking
enhancement under Guideline 2K2.1(b)(5) on resentencing, and we express
no view on the propriety of applying that enhancement. See Akpan, 407 F.3d
at 377 n.62.

        _____________________
        1
           Rodriguez was, to reiterate, sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. If the
district court had not applied the elevated base offense level, Rodriguez’s total offense level
would have been 25 (rather than 27), and the advisory Guidelines range would have been
57 to 71 months (rather than 70 to 87 months). See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A.

                                                   5