Court Opinion

ID: 9905334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 01:00:47.72837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:01.647081
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10398        Document: 00516981576             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/28/2023

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

                                      No. 23-10398
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                              November 28, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Juan Salazar-Grimaldo,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:21-CR-636-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Juan Salazar-Grimaldo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following prior
   removal. The district court sentenced him within the guidelines range to 37
   months in prison. He appeals his sentence.
         Salazar-Grimaldo contends that the district court erred by considering
   his prior arrest and indictment for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10398      Document: 00516981576           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/28/2023

                                     No. 23-10398

   to determine his sentence. He argues that the district court improperly relied
   on the description of the charge contained in the presentence report (PSR).
   He asserts that the description lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and was
   tantamount to a bare arrest record. Because he did not assert this issue in the
   district court, we apply plain error review. See United States v. Williams, 620
   F.3d 483, 493 (5th Cir. 2010).
          “[O]ur precedent is clear that the consideration of the mere fact of a
   prior arrest is prohibited.” United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 231 (5th
   Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 273, 278 (5th Cir. 2011)
   (“[I]t is error for a district court to consider a defendant’s ‘bare arrest
   record’ at sentencing.”). However, the PSR here did not just note the fact
   of the arrest and indictment without further details. Rather, the description
   in the PSR gave details concerning the factual underpinnings of the charge
   and had corresponding information about the conduct that led to the arrest
   and indictment for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; the PSR, inter
   alia, identified the alleged victim, included information about the underlying
   conduct, and set forth the reason why the case was dismissed. See United
   States v. Reyna-Aragon, 992 F.3d 381, 389-91 (5th Cir. 2021). Thus, there was
   an adequate evidentiary basis, and the PSR could be viewed as reliable
   because Salazar-Grimaldo did not present rebuttal evidence or show that the
   information in the PSR should not be credited. The district court therefore
   could adopt the information in the PSR and rely upon its description of the
   charge for sentencing purposes. See id. at 390; Harris, 702 F.3d at 230-31.
   Further, Salazar-Grimaldo has not shown that the district court’s
   consideration of the PSR’s description of the charge in conjunction with
   other factors—including, inter alia, his convictions, his illegal reentry, and
   the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors—affected his substantial rights. See Reyna-
   Aragon; 992 F.3d at 391.

                                          2
Case: 23-10398     Document: 00516981576          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/28/2023

                                   No. 23-10398

          Salazar-Grimaldo further challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C.
   § 1326(b). He contends that § 1326(b) allows a sentence above the otherwise
   applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) to be imposed based
   on facts that are not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a
   reasonable doubt. He correctly concedes that his claim is foreclosed by
   Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), and raises it
   only to preserve it for further review. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d
   546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019).
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                         3