Court Opinion

ID: 9378616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-11 01:00:26.885138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.184099
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10826        Document: 00516673239             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/10/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10826
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                March 10, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Reynaldo Mendoza,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:21-CR-58-9
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Reynaldo Mendoza appeals from the 135-month imprisonment
   sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to
   distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
   methamphetamine. He argues that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(2), the
   district court should have imposed his instant sentence to run concurrently

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10826      Document: 00516673239            Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                      No. 22-10826

   with the undischarged terms of imprisonment for his three state offenses
   because those state offenses constituted relevant conduct.
          We review a district court’s interpretation or application of the
   Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United
   States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).            What
   constitutes relevant conduct is a factual question subject to clear error
   review. United States v. Ekanem, 555 F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 2009). “A
   factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the
   record as a whole.” United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir.
   2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c), if “a state term of imprisonment is
   anticipated to result 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 to run concurrently to the anticipated term of
   imprisonment.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(2). Mendoza’s appellate argument
   specifically relies on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), which defines relevant conduct
   as “solely with respect to offenses of a character for which § 3D1.2(d) would
   require grouping of multiple counts, all acts and omissions described in
   subdivisions (1)(A) and (1)(B) above that were part of the same course of
   conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” Because
   Mendoza does not argue that the state offenses qualify as part of a common
   scheme or plan, he has abandoned that issue. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d
   1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994).
          The Government argues that Mendoza’s three state offenses could
   not be considered relevant conduct because they consisted of burglary and
   robbery offenses, which are non-groupable offenses for purposes of
   § 3D1.2(d). We need not address that argument because our review of “the

                                           2
Case: 22-10826     Document: 00516673239          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                   No. 22-10826

   degree of similarity of the offenses, the regularity (repetitions) of the
   offenses, and the time interval between the offenses” shows that the district
   court did not clearly err in finding that Mendoza’s state offenses were not
   part of the same course of conduct as his federal offense of conviction.
   § 1B1.3, comment. (n.5(B)(ii)).      Accordingly, § 5G1.3(b)(2) was not
   applicable to Mendoza’s sentence.
         The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                        3