Court Opinion

ID: 9353520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 01:00:20.840548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:08:01.988345
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10199         Document: 00516607507             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/11/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10199
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               January 11, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Gilberto Gonzalez-Enriquez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CR-268-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Gilberto Gonzalez-Enriquez appeals the below-Guidelines 52-
   months’ sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal
   reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). He maintains
   the court erred by applying an additional 10-level enhancement under
   Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(3)(A) for his 2019 felony-driving-while-

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10199      Document: 00516607507           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/11/2023

                                     No. 22-10199

   intoxicated conviction because instead, under Texas law and Application
   Note 5, only one 10-level enhancement under Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A)
   should have been applied.
          Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district
   court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
   the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51
   (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to
   an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an
   abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez,
   564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in
   district court, as in this instance, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed
   de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v.
   Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
          We need not decide whether the court procedurally erred in applying
   the enhancement, because the Government has met its burden on appeal of
   showing that any error was harmless by demonstrating: the court “would
   have imposed the same sentence had it not made the error”; and it “would
   have done so for the same reasons it gave at . . . sentencing”. United States
   v. Guzman-Rendon, 864 F.3d 409, 411–12 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted)
   (rejecting claim of error as harmless without deciding whether court erred).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           2