Court Opinion

ID: 9942700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 19:01:14.206849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:28.753187
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40312           Document: 46-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/21/2024

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

                                  ____________                                      FILED
                                                                             February 21, 2024
                                   No. 23-40312
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                                   Clerk
                                 ____________

United States of America,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Brenda Belinda Barba,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 7:21-CR-2453-1
                  ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Brenda Belinda Barba challenges her sentence following her guilty
plea conviction for smuggling goods from the United States in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 554(a). She argues the pistols and ammunition she attempted to
smuggle from the United States into Mexico did not create a security or
foreign policy risk to the United States and, therefore, the appropriate base
       _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 23-40312        Document: 46-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                  No. 23-40312

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2M5.2 is 14, not 26. Additionally, she argues
the district court erred in failing to depart downward based on the
commentary to Section 2M5.2.
       “We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the
Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v.
Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 2017). The district court’s factual
findings are entitled to deference and will not be reversed if they are plausible
in light of the entire record. United States v. Lucio, 985 F.3d 482, 485 (5th
Cir. 2021); see also United States v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278, 282 (5th Cir.
2015) (“A factual finding that is plausible based on the record as a whole is
not clearly erroneous.”).
       A base offense level of 26 is “the default level for unlawful exportation
of firearms.” United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 539 (5th Cir. 2015); see
§ 2M5.2(a)(1). However, the base offense can be lowered to 14 “if the
offense involved only (A) non-fully automatic small arms (rifles, handguns,
or shotguns), and the number of weapons did not exceed two,
(B) ammunition for non-fully automatic small arms, and the number of
rounds did not exceed 500, or (C) both.” § 2M5.2(a)(2). Application Note
One of Section 2M5.2 explains that the prescribed “base offense level
assumes that the offense conduct was harmful or had the potential to be
harmful to a security or foreign policy interest of the United States,” and
that, “[i]n the unusual case where the offense conduct posed no such risk, a
downward departure may be warranted.” § 2M5.2, cmt. note 1.
       Here, the presentence report (“PSR”) states border agents found two
non-fully automatic pistols and 550 rounds of ammunition. The district court
was free to adopt this factual finding by the PSR, as there is nothing in the
record to indicate that it did not have an adequate evidentiary basis and,
further, Barba did not present rebuttal evidence or otherwise demonstrate

                                       2
Case: 23-40312        Document: 46-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                 No. 23-40312

the information was unreliable. See United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213,
220 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the district court’s factual finding in this
regard was not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not err in
concluding that the base offense level of 26 under Section 2M5.2(a)(1)
applied. See Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 164; see also Gonzalez, 792 F.3d at 539
(stating a finding that the offense involved more than 500 rounds of
ammunition “dooms [the] sentencing argument given that the ammunition
finding alone prevents application of the lower offense level”).
       As for Barba’s contention that the district court erred when it failed
to grant a downward departure based on the commentary to Section 2M5.2,
we lack jurisdiction “to review a sentencing court’s refusal to grant a
downward departure unless the court based its decision upon an erroneous
belief that it lacked the authority to depart.” United States v. Fillmore, 889
F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Barba
does not argue, and the record does not suggest, that the district court was
unaware of its authority to depart from the Guidelines range. See id.
       Lastly, after Barba filed her notice of appeal, the district court
amended the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to
correct a clerical error as to the end date of the offense of conviction. The
district court, however, was without jurisdiction to enter the amended
judgment during the pendency of this appeal because Barba’s “notice of
appeal . . . divested the district court of jurisdiction to act under Rule 36.”
United States v. Willis, 76 F.4th 467, 472 (5th Cir. 2023).
       Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN
PART, and the appeal is DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.
Further, the district court’s amended judgment is VACATED, and the case
is REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to
correct the original judgment’s clerical error.

                                       3