Court Opinion

ID: 9383141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 18:00:33.308212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.909654
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10754         Document: 00516693138             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023

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

                                       No. 22-10754
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                 March 29, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Saul Navarrete De La Cerda,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CR-86-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Stewart, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Saul Navarrete De La Cerda pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following
   removal. He raises two issues challenging his sentence.
          As for his first issue, De La Cerda contends that the district court
   committed plain error by considering his bare arrest record at sentencing. See
   United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 273, 278 (5th Cir. 2011). While the district

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10754      Document: 00516693138          Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/29/2023

                                    No. 22-10754

   court adopted the facts and the sentencing guideline in the presentence
   report (PSR), the district court did not adopt the PSR’s recommendation to
   grant an upward variance. Thus, it is unlikely that error was committed at
   all.
          The record shows a long list of unscored actual convictions and some
   arrests with more than “bare” information. So, to the extent that the district
   court found that De La Cerda’s criminal history category substantially
   underrepresented his criminal history, it was not clearly erroneous to
   consider unscored criminal convictions and prior punishments as this was the
   true focus of the finding. See United States v. Robinson, 980 F.3d 454, 465
   (5th Cir. 2020). The passing reference in the PSR to De La Cerda’s prior
   arrests does not change that result. See id. Thus, there is no clear error. Even
   if there were a clear error, any such error resulting from the finding did not
   affect his substantial rights, given that he received a within-guidelines
   sentence. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 262-63 (5th Cir.
   2009); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
          De La Cerda next argues that his sentence exceeds the statutory
   maximum and is therefore unconstitutional because the district court
   enhanced his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on facts that were
   neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable
   doubt. While he acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-
   Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve
   it for possible Supreme Court review. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions
   such as Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New
   Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United
   States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, De La Cerda is
   correct that his argument is foreclosed.
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2