Court Opinion

ID: 9397311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 00:00:31.649436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.519064
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50404        Document: 00516762686             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/24/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50404
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 24, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Pedro Ramirez-Urbina,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CR-716-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Pedro Ramirez-Urbina appeals the 71-month sentence imposed after
   his jury trial conviction of conspiring to transport illegal aliens and
   transporting illegal aliens. He primarily contends that the district court
   clearly erred in applying a 10-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
   § 2L1.1(b)(7)(D) because the Government failed to demonstrate by a

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50404      Document: 00516762686          Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/24/2023

                                    No. 22-50404

   preponderance of the evidence that his conduct was a but-for cause of Jose
   Alfredo Lopez-Vasquez’s death.
          Because Ramirez-Urbina objected to the application of the
   enhancement below, we review the district court’s interpretation and
   application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for
   clear error. See United States v. Ruiz-Hernandez, 890 F.3d 202, 211 (5th Cir.
   2018). There is no clear error if a factual finding is plausible in light of the
   record as a whole. Id. at 212.
          The Sentencing Guidelines provide that a defendant’s offense level is
   increased by 10 levels “[i]f any person died” during the smuggling or
   transportation of an illegal alien. § 2L1.1(b)(7)(D). This enhancement will
   apply if the Government demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence
   that the defendant’s conduct was the but-for cause of an individual’s death.
   United States v. Gaspar-Felipe, 4 F.4th 330, 343 & n.12 (5th Cir. 2021), cert.
   denied, 142 S. Ct. 903 (2022). “But-for causation exists if the result would
   not have occurred without the conduct at issue.” Ruiz-Hernandez, 890 F.3d
   at 212. We have recognized that this “is not a difficult burden to meet.”
   United States v. Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 2014). We ask
   “whether the outcome would have occurred in the absence of the action.”
   United States v. Salinas, 918 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2019).
          While the autopsy results were inconclusive, Lopez-Vasquez would
   not have been lost in the Texas desert for four days in the summer without
   sufficient water but for Ramirez-Urbina’s actions in smuggling him into the
   United States through the desert. See Gaspar-Felipe, 4 F.4th at 343–44.
   Simply stated, Ramirez-Urbina was “fully responsible for placing [Lopez-
   Vasquez] in a precarious position where subsequent but-for causes ultimately
   took his life.” Salinas, 918 F.3d at 467. Therefore, the district court did not

                                              2
Case: 22-50404     Document: 00516762686          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/24/2023

                                   No. 22-50404

   clearly err in imposing the Section 2L1.1(b)(7)(D) enhancement. See Ruiz-
   Hernandez, 890 F.3d at 212.
          Ramirez-Urbina also argues that sentencing based on acquitted
   conduct violates the due process clause; that Section 2L1.1(b)(7)(D) requires
   that the defendant’s conduct be at least the proximate cause of death; and
   that the district court should have required “clear and convincing” proof of
   causation rather than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. He correctly
   concedes, though, that these arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. See
   Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d at 401–02; United States v. Simpson, 741 F.3d 539,
   559 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Farias, 469 F.3d 393, 399–400 (5th Cir.
   2006). He states that the arguments are raised only to preserve the claims
   for further review.
          AFFIRMED.

                                            3