Court Opinion

ID: 9352396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 01:00:21.159749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:27.412374
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-51065     Document: 00516599073          Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/05/2023

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

                                                                              FILED
                                                                         January 5, 2023
                                   No. 21-51065                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Jose Luis Garcia, Jr.,

                                                          Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:20-CR-1917-1

   Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          A jury convicted Jose Luis Garcia, Jr., on one count of dealing firearms
   without a license. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 924(a)(1)(D). The district
   court varied upward from the guidelines range by eight months and
   sentenced Garcia to 41 months of imprisonment and three years of
   supervised release.    On appeal, Garcia argues that the evidence was

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-51065      Document: 00516599073           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/05/2023

                                     No. 21-51065

   insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence was substantively
   unreasonable. This court affirms.
          The sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge fails. Garcia concedes that
   he did not preserve this argument, so our review is for plain error. United
   States v. Huntsberry, 956 F.3d 270, 282 (5th Cir. 2020). Under the plain-error
   standard, reversal is justified if there was “(1) an error, that was (2) plain,
   that (3) affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) seriously affected
   the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United
   States v. Vasquez, 677 F.3d 685, 693 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). “[W]e have
   summarized the plain-error test’s application to unpreserved insufficiency
   claims by stating that the court will reverse only if there is a manifest
   miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 331 (5th Cir.
   2012) (en banc) (quotation omitted). This occurs where “the record is
   devoid of evidence pointing to guilt” or where “the evidence is so tenuous
   that a conviction would be shocking.” United States v. Smith, 878 F.3d 498,
   503 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted).

          Garcia’s only developed sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on
   appeal is that the Government failed to prove that he was “engaged in the
   business” of dealing firearms. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 924(a)(1)(D).
   Under the applicable statutory definition, the Government needed to show
   that Garcia dealt “in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to
   predominately earn a profit.” Id. § 921(a)(21)(C) (emphases added). In an
   interview with law enforcement, Garcia admitted that he purchased and
   resold firearms “for profit.” In addition, the evidence showed that Garcia
   dealt in firearms regularly because he (1) purchased and resold a large
   quantity of firearms over a period of several months, (2) was experienced in
   buying and selling firearms, (3) was knowledgeable about current prices, and
   (4) was familiar with laws governing the sale of firearms. Given that the

                                          2
Case: 21-51065      Document: 00516599073           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/05/2023

                                     No. 21-51065

   record is not wholly “devoid of evidence” that Garcia was “engaged in the
   business” of dealing firearms, his sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge fails.
          Garcia’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence
   fares no better. Here, we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
   Vargas, 21 F.4th 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its
   discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous
   assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Teuschler, 689 F.3d 397, 399
   (5th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). A district court’s factual findings are
   clearly erroneous if, when viewing the record as a whole, we are “left with
   the definite and firm conviction that a mistake” was made. United States v.
   Khan, 997 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). A sentence
   outside the guidelines range is substantively unreasonable if it “(1) does not
   account for a[n] [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factor that should have received
   significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper
   [§ 3553(a)] factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the
   [§ 3553(a)] factors.” United States v. Nguyen, 854 F.3d 276, 283 (5th Cir.
   2017) (quotation omitted).
          The district court stated that Garcia’s sentence was based on (1) its
   determination that the firearms he purchased were destined for Mexico and
   (2) the “peculiarly aggravating circumstance” that he committed the offense
   in a border community. First, the district court did not clearly err in finding
   that the firearms Garcia bought and sold were destined for Mexico. The
   evidence showed that Garcia frequently entered the United States,
   purchased firearms, and returned to Mexico—sometimes all within a few
   hours. And other evidence showed Garcia inside a store photographing
   firearms, sending messages with his cell phone, and purchasing multiple
   identical firearms, which are actions consistent with those of a straw
   purchaser.    Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
   considering the fact that Garcia committed his offense in a border community

                                          3
Case: 21-51065     Document: 00516599073          Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/05/2023

                                   No. 21-51065

   as an “aggravating circumstance” that warranted an upward variance. This
   reflects the district court’s concern about several of the relevant § 3553(a)
   factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need for
   adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the public. See Nguyen,
   854 F.3d at 283–84. Given that the district court made no clearly erroneous
   factual findings and adequately accounted for the relevant § 3553(a) factors
   in varying Garcia’s sentence upward by eight months, it did not abuse its
   discretion.
          AFFIRMED.

                                        4