Court Opinion

ID: 9408893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 00:00:38.146008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.584269
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50843         Document: 00516819715             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50843
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     July 13, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jacinto Davalos,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:16-CR-1115-13
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Jacinto Davalos pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to
   distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. § 846, and to
   maintaining a drug-involved premises, see 21 U.S.C. § 856. The district court
   sentenced Davalos to concurrent terms of 235 months of imprisonment,
   followed by five years of supervised release. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853, the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50843      Document: 00516819715           Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                     No. 22-50843

   district court also ordered Davalos to forfeit the amount equivalent to selling
   1.5 kilograms of cocaine for 46 months, for a total of $1,794,000.
          On appeal, Davalos argues that the district court failed to make any
   factual findings as to whether he actually acquired $1,794,000 or received
   other substitute property as a result of the crime in light of Honeycutt v. United
   States, 581 U.S. 443 (2017). He asserts that the forfeiture money judgment
   violates Honeycutt because (1) he sold only 0.5 ounces of cocaine per week,
   and (2) his coconspirators received the vast majority of the proceeds for the
   drug trafficking organization while he personally obtained “only minimal
   amounts” that were much lower than $1,794,000.
          The Government contends that Davalos waived his challenge to the
   money judgment. We agree that Davalos waived his challenge to the district
   court’s factual finding that the “crack house” he operated sold 1.5 kilograms
   of cocaine per month, as he filed written objections to the presentence report
   regarding this fact finding but subsequently withdrew those objections at
   sentencing. See United States v. Conn, 657 F.3d 280, 286 (5th Cir. 2011).
          Davalos did not, however, waive his challenge to the extent he now
   claims the money judgment is without sufficient factual support. We review
   this issue for plain error. See United States v. Omigie, 977 F.3d 397, 403 (5th
   Cir. 2020); United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Here, while the district court based its forfeiture calculation on the
   amount of drugs sold through Davalos’s crack house, the court did not make
   any factual findings as to what portion of those proceeds Davalos actually
   acquired. The money judgment, therefore, lacks sufficient factual support.
   The Supreme Court made clear in Honeycutt that the provisions of § 853(a)
   “are in accord with the limitation of forfeiture to property the defendant
   himself obtained.” Honeycutt, 581 U.S. at 450. Thus, Davalos has shown a
   clear or obvious error that affects his substantial rights. See United States v.

                                           2
Case: 22-50843     Document: 00516819715           Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                    No. 22-50843

   Moya, 18 F.4th 480, 485–86 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Sanjar, 876 F.3d
   725, 750 (5th Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Davalos, 810 F. App’x 268,
   273 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Because the money judgment against Mr. Davalos is
   without sufficient factual support, it should be vacated and this case
   remanded for the purpose of making factual findings regarding the
   appropriate money judgment.”).
          Accordingly, we exercise our discretion and VACATE the forfeiture
   money judgment provision of Davalos’s sentence. We REMAND this case
   to the district court so that it may conduct factfinding regarding the
   appropriate value of the money judgment in accordance with Honeycutt. In all
   other respects, we AFFIRM.

                                         3