Court Opinion

ID: 9966313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 18:00:35.352229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.646965
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30651            Document: 68-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/06/2024

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

                                     No. 23-30651
                                                                               FILED
                                                                            May 6, 2024
                                   ____________
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                      Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Devon Zeno,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Louisiana
                             USDC No. 6:23-CR-36-1
                   ______________________________

Before Dennis, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Defendant Devon Zeno pleaded guilty in both state and federal court
for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. On appeal, Zeno contends that
the district court erred by declining to credit Defendant the full length of his
previous imprisonment under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). Because the district
court incorrectly calculated the guidelines range, we vacate and remand for
resentencing.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30651        Document: 68-1        Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                  No. 23-30651

                                       I.
        On October 19, 2019, Zeno was found in possession of a firearm.
Three years later, on November 17, 2022, Zeno pleaded guilty to possessing
a firearm as a convicted felon in Louisiana state court and was sentenced to
eight years of hard labor. On February 15, 2023, Zeno was also federally in-
dicted for the same conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Zeno
pleaded guilty through a written plea agreement.
        The presentence report states that Zeno’s total offense score was 12,
and the criminal history category score was IV. Together, these scores
amounted to an advisory guidelines range of 21 to 27 months of imprison-
ment. Neither party filed objections to the PSR, but Zeno submitted a sen-
tencing memorandum requesting that the district court reduce his sentence
under § 5G1.3(b) by 20 months—the amount of time he spent in state cus-
tody.
        On September 8, 2023, the district court sentenced Zeno to a term of
22 months of imprisonment. Starting at the upper end of the guideline range
at 27 months, the district court subtracted five months, pursuant to §
5G1.3(b), resulting in a final sentence of 22 months. The five months ac-
counted for the period from March 21, 2023 to September 8, 2023 for which
Zeno was held in federal custody. In response to a clarification question
asked by Zeno’s counsel, the district court explained that it had “taken into
consideration how much time [Zeno has] served” and chose not to upwardly
depart from the guidelines, even though “this ordinarily might be a case
where [it] would depart.” Zeno did not explicitly object to the sentence at
the hearing. Zeno timely appealed.
                                      II.
        The parties disagree on the applicable standard of review to this case.
We generally review a district court’s application of the sentencing

                                       2
Case: 23-30651         Document: 68-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                 No. 23-30651

guidelines de novo. United States v. Olarte-Rojas, 820 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir.
2016). But the Government asserts that Zeno did not properly preserve this
argument before the district court, and therefore we must review for plain
error instead. See United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 328 (5th Cir. 2012)
(plain error review for unpreserved issues). Conversely, Zeno argues that the
arguments set forth in his sentencing memorandum sufficiently preserved
the issue. We agree.
       To preserve an issue, “an objection must be sufficiently specific to
alert the district court to the nature of the alleged error and to provide an
opportunity for correction.” United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th
Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 589 (5th Cir. 2000)).
“[T]he objection and argument on appeal need not be identical; the objection
need only give the district court the opportunity to address the gravamen of
the argument presented on appeal.” United States v. Nesmith, 866 F.3d 677,
679 (5th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).
       While Zeno did not object at his sentencing hearing, he clearly raised
the § 5G1.3(b) issue in his sentencing memorandum. Specifically, the sen-
tencing memorandum states that the application of § 5G1.3(b) should credit
Zeno with 20 months—the amount of time he would have already served by
August 2023. And this would adjust his initial guideline range of 21 to 27
months to a guideline range of 1 to 7 months. In addition, at the sentencing
hearing, the district court acknowledged that it reviewed the sentencing
memorandum.
       Accordingly, we find this sufficient to put the district court on notice
of the argument and thus preserve the issue for appeal, even if Zeno did not
explicitly renew his position at the sentencing hearing. Thus, de novo review
is appropriate here.

                                        3
Case: 23-30651          Document: 68-1         Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                    No. 23-30651

                                        III.
          Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant shall receive credit toward his
federal sentence for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the
date of the sentence commences, if the time has not been credited against
another sentence. This authority to calculate and award time belongs only to
the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons. United States v. Wilson,
503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992); Leal v. Tombone, 341 F.3d 427, 428 (5th Cir. 2003).
A sentencing court is not authorized to calculate credit for time spent in
official detention. United States v. Taylor, 973 F.3d 414, 418−19 (5th Cir.
2020).
          But if the Bureau of Prisons will deny a defendant credit, U.S.S.G. §
5G1.3(b) permits a sentencing court to reduce a defendant’s sentence based
on previous time served if the offenses are related. Specifically, § 5G1.3(b)
states:
                 (b) If . . . a term of imprisonment resulted from another
          offense that is relevant conduct to the instant offense of
          conviction under the provisions of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or
          (a)(3) of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), the sentence for the
          instant offense shall be imposed as follows:
                 (1) the court shall adjust the sentence for any period of
                 imprisonment already served on the undischarged term
                 of imprisonment if the court determines that such
                 period of imprisonment will not be credited to the
                 federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons; and
                 (2) the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed
                 to run concurrently to the remainder of the
                 undischarged term of imprisonment.
§ 5G1.3(b).

                                         4
Case: 23-30651       Document: 68-1       Page: 5    Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                 No. 23-30651

       Zeno argues that the district court erred by declining to credit Zeno
the full 20 months under § 5G1.3(b). He purports that the district court
misunderstood that the Bureau of Prisons would credit him further, citing the
court’s statement at sentencing that it would only be crediting the five
months that the Bureau of Prisons wouldn’t cover.           In response, the
Government contends that § 5G1.3(b) does not mandate the district court to
credit Zeno the full 20 months. It cites United States v. Booker, where the
Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines are merely advisory in
nature. 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005).
       While Booker rendered the guidelines advisory, district courts are still
required to consider the guidelines and calculate the guidelines range
correctly before making their decisions. In fact, “the [g]uidelines should be
the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 49 (2007). Our court has affirmed in several unpublished opinions that
Booker does not permit courts to just avoid § 5G1.3(b) altogether without
considering it in its sentencing determination. See, e.g., United States v.
Figueroa, 215 F. App’x 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2007) (noting that Booker “does not
allow them to bypass a provision of the guidelines, which still provide an
anchor for our evaluation of a sentence’s reasonableness”); United States v.
Estrada, 312 F. App’x 664, 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he court was still
required to consider that subsection as part of its determination of a
reasonable sentence.”).
       Here, unlike in Figueroa, the district court clearly noted at the
sentencing hearing that it took § 5G1.3(b) into account when it decided to
reduce Zeno’s sentence by five months. It also explicitly stated that it chose
not to upwardly depart from the guidelines given its recognition of Zeno’s
time spent in state custody and reviewed Zeno’s sentencing memorandum
prior to making its sentencing decision. These statements show that the
district court did consider § 5G1.3(b) and whether to credit time served.

                                      5
Case: 23-30651       Document: 68-1       Page: 6    Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                 No. 23-30651

       But while the district court considered § 5G1.3(b), it did not calculate
the guidelines range correctly before making its sentencing decision. At
sentencing, the district court stated that there were only “five months that
BOP will not credit” to Zeno, pointing to the five-month period that Zeno
was held in federal custody. Such calculation does not account for the 20
months that Zeno served in state custody for the same offense. This time
would not have been credited by Bureau of Prisons because it was “already
credited toward a state sentence.” Smith v. McConnell, 950 F.3d 285, 288
(5th Cir. 2020) (citing Stevens v. United States, 470 F. App’x 303, 303 (5th
Cir. 2012)). Accordingly, the district error committed procedural error. See
United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 508 (characterizing the improper
calculation of the guidelines range as procedural error). And this error was
not harmless, as the erroneous calculation influenced the district court’s
sentencing determination. See United States v. Alfaro, 30 F. 4th 514, 520 (5th
Cir. 2022) (procedural error in calculating guidelines range requires remand
unless harmless).
       For this reason, we vacate and remand for resentencing.

                                      6