Court Opinion

ID: 9380038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 00:00:27.503522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.250191
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50083        Document: 00516679541             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/16/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50083
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                March 16, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Chayna Holguin,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-13-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Chayna Holguin pleaded guilty to importation of 40 grams or more of
   fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of
   fentanyl. These offenses carry five-year statutory minimum sentences. See
   21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), (b)(2)(F); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
   (b)(1)(B)(vi). However, over the Government’s objection, the district court

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50083      Document: 00516679541           Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/16/2023

                                     No. 22-50083

   concluded that Holguin was eligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(f), as amended by the First Step Act. Relying on the Ninth Circuit’s
   reasoning in United States v. Lopez, 998 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2021), the district
   court determined that § 3553(f)(1) only excludes defendants (otherwise
   eligible under the other parts of the statute) who meet all three disqualifying
   criteria enumerated in that subsection. Thus, although Holguin had a prior
   three-point offense, she was eligible for safety valve relief because she did not
   also have four criminal history points, excluding points from a one-point
   offense, and a prior two-point violent offense. See § 3553(f)(1). The district
   court sentenced Holguin below the statutory minimum to concurrent terms
   of 37 months of imprisonment.
          The Government appeals the district court’s determination that
   Holguin was eligible for safety valve relief as provided in § 3553(f) and the
   resulting imposition of a sentence lower than the statutory minimum. We
   review the district court’s legal interpretation of the safety valve statute de
   novo. United States v. Towns, 718 F.3d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 2013).
          After Holguin’s judgment of conviction was entered, we decided
   United States v. Palomares, 52 F.4th 640 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed
   (U.S. Dec. 21, 2022) (No. 22-6391). We held in Palomares that “defendants
   [are] ineligible for safety valve relief if they run afoul of any one of [the]
   requirements” enumerated in § 3553(f)(1). 52 F.4th at 647. Looking to the
   text of the statute, we rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conjunctive approach of
   linguistic interpretation in Lopez and conversely applied the distributive
   approach. See id. at 642-47.
          As both the Government and Holguin aptly agree, because Holguin
   had a prior three-point offense, Palomares disqualifies her from safety valve
   relief under § 3553(f). See Palomares, 52 F.4th at 647. Further, although
   Holguin argues that Palomares was incorrectly decided as a matter of

                                           2
Case: 22-50083     Document: 00516679541          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/16/2023

                                   No. 22-50083

   statutory interpretation, she and the Government agree that our decision in
   Palomares is binding until the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc
   overrules this safety valve issue. See United States v. James, 950 F.3d 289,
   292-93 (5th Cir. 2020).
         In light of the foregoing, Holguin’s sentence is VACATED, and the
   matter is REMANDED for further proceedings.

                                        3