Court Opinion

ID: 9554192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 00:00:28.163278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:20.944384
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-11209            Document: 00516848870             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

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

                                                FILED
                                         ____________
                                                                                     August 7, 2023
                                           No. 21-11209                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                         ____________                                     Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                          Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                                versus

   Justin Del Rio,

                                                  Defendant—Appellant.
                         ______________________________

                         Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the Northern District of Texas
                                   USDC No. 6:21-CR-33-1
                         ______________________________

   Before King, Smith, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
             Justin Del Rio appeals his sentence in the face of an appeal waiver.
   Because he failed to brief all the factors to establish reversible plain error, we
   affirm.

                                                   I.
             Del Rio pleaded guilty, per a plea agreement, to production of child
   pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). In exchange for his plea, the govern-

             _____________________
             *
                 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-11209        Document: 00516848870              Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                         No. 21-11209

   ment agreed not to bring additional charges “based upon the conduct under-
   lying and related to [Del Rio’s] plea of guilty.”
           The plea agreement included a provision stating, “if the Court finds
   the defendant is not indigent, an additional mandatory special assessment of
   $5,000 must be imposed pursuant” to section 101 of the Justice for Victims
   of Trafficking Act of 2015 (“JVTA”). In that same plea agreement, Del Rio
   broadly agreed to waive his right to appeal his “conviction, sentence, fine and
   order of restitution or forfeiture.” Del Rio negotiated carveouts to this broad
   appeal waiver, which included preserving his right to challenge a sentence
   “exceeding the statutory maximum.” 1
           At sentencing, Del Rio did not object to the presentence report
   (“PSR”) or its addendum. The district court sentenced him to 360 months
   of imprisonment and 25 years of supervised release. The court ordered Del
   Rio to pay a fee mandated by the JVTA. Del Rio did not object to his sentence
   but filed a timely notice of appeal.
           Del Rio contends that the appeal waiver does not block his challenge
   to the JVTA special assessment, reasoning that it is a sentence above the stat-
   utory maximum. On the merits, he maintains that the district court plainly
   erred in failing to establish that he was not indigent before imposing the spe-
   cial assessment and that he is, in fact, indigent.

                                               II.
           We review the enforceability of an appeal waiver de novo. Under our
   controlling precedent in United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir.
   2005), we carry out a two-step inquiry: “(1) whether the waiver was knowing

           _____________________
           1
             The other negotiated carveouts were to challenge the voluntariness of his guilty
   plea or appeal waiver, arithmetic errors at sentencing, and to bring a claim of ineffective
   assistance of counsel. Del Rio does not press any of these claims.

                                               2
Case: 21-11209        Document: 00516848870             Page: 3      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                        No. 21-11209

   and voluntary and (2) whether the waiver applies to the circumstances at
   hand, based on the plain language of the agreement.” Del Rio challenges only
   step two. Also, per Bond, a statutory-maximum provision authorizes an
   appeal only where the district court exceeds “the upper limit of punishment
   that Congress has legislatively specified for violations of a statute.” Id. at 546
   (quotation omitted).
           Because Del Rio did not challenge his sentence in district court, our
   review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
   Del Rio “must show that the district court erred, that the error was plain, and
   that the plain error affected his substantial rights. Even if these conditions
   are met, we exercise our discretion to correct the error only if it seriously
   affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
   United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 273 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam)
   (cleaned up).

                                             III.
           Although this court has not yet ruled on whether a challenge to a find-
   ing of non-indigency in a JVTA special assessment can result in a sentence in
   excess of the statutory maximum, 2 we pretermit discussion of the issue
   because Del Rio failed adequately to argue that all four prongs of plain error
   review were met.
           A “challenge cannot succeed on plain error review” where the defen-
   dant “fails to argue that the alleged error affected the fairness, integrity, or
   public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Caravayo, 809 F.3d at 273. We
   have consistently “refused to correct plain errors when, as here, the com-
   plaining party makes no showing as to the fourth prong.” Id. at 273–74 (quot-

           _____________________
           2
             See United States v. Graves, 908 F.3d 137, 139–40 (5th Cir. 2018) (avoiding the
   issue and resolving on the merits).

                                              3
Case: 21-11209        Document: 00516848870              Page: 4      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                         No. 21-11209

   ing United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1018 n.3 (5th Cir. 2015)). It was
   Del Rio’s burden, in his opening brief, to “demonstrate that the error
   affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceed-
   ings.” Id. at 274 (quoting United States v. Andaverde-Tinoco, 741 F.3d 509,
   523 (5th Cir. 2013)).
           Del Rio did not make that required showing. Although his brief duti-
   fully incants the four prongs of plain error review, it presents no argument as
   to why the fourth prong is satisfied or why the court should use its discretion
   to correct any error. 3
           Del Rio has not established plain error under our clear precedent. The
   judgment is AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           3
            “A party forfeits an argument . . . by failing to adequately brief the argument on
   appeal.” Mock v. Garland, No. 23-10319, 2023 WL 4882763, at *12 n.38 (5th Cir. Aug. 1,
   2023) (omission in original) (quoting Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir.
   2021)).

                                               4