Court Opinion

ID: 9409111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-15 00:00:36.914331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.924097
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50406         Document: 00516821034             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                               FILED
                                                                             July 14, 2023
                                       No. 22-50406
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                               Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Rony Munoz,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-987-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Southwick and Oldham, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Rony Munoz appeals his concurrent 27-month sentences for
   (1) transportation of illegal aliens and (2) fraud and misuse of visas, permits,
   and other documents. The district court enhanced the sentences pursuant
   to U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.1(b)(6) after it determined that Munoz
   intentionally or recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50406          Document: 00516821034              Page: 2       Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                           No. 22-50406

   injury to the aliens he transported. Munoz contends that the circumstances
   of his offense do not warrant the sentence enhancement, arguing that
   “merely carrying unrestrained passengers in the cargo area of a sport utility
   vehicle does not justify a § 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement” and that “[t]he
   evidence in this case does not show that the passengers lacked oxygen, were
   exposed to temperature extremes, were unable to communicate with the
   driver, unable to exit the vehicle quickly, or in substantially more danger in
   the event of an accident.”
           This court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing
   Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. 1 The commentary
   to § 2L1.1 gives “carrying substantially more passengers than the rated
   capacity of a motor vehicle or vessel” as an example of reckless conduct that
   would support a sentence enhancement under § 2L1.1(b)(6).2 When a case’s
   facts do not fall squarely within the situations outlined by the commentary,
   this court also considers “the availability of oxygen, exposure to temperature
   extremes, the aliens’ ability to communicate with the driver of the vehicle,
   their ability to exit the vehicle quickly, and the danger to them if an accident
   occurs.”3
           When Munoz was pulled over for speeding, his vehicle contained
   thirteen individuals despite only containing five seats. Excluding Munoz in
   the driver’s seat, the vehicle contained three times as many passengers as
           _____________________
           1
            See United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting
   United States v. Lige, 635 F.3d 668, 670 (5th Cir. 2011)).
           2
             U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1 cmt. n.3; see also United States v. Zuniga-Amezquita, 468 F.3d
   886, 888 n.3 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[C]ommentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or
   explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute,
   or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.” (quoting Stinson
   v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993))).
           3
               Zuniga-Amezquita, 468 F.3d at 889.

                                                      2
Case: 22-50406         Document: 00516821034                Page: 3      Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                             No. 22-50406

   seats. The photographs show that the passengers had little room, with some
   sitting on top of others, and many not wearing seatbelts. This constitutes
   “carrying substantially more passengers than the rated capacity of a motor
   vehicle or vessel.”4 Because there was substantial overcrowding, we need
   not consider whether other aggravating circumstances were present. The
   district court did not err in enhancing Munoz’s sentences under
   § 2L1.1(b)(6). We therefore do not address Munoz’s argument that the
   sentences were substantively unreasonable due to this alleged procedural
   error. We perceive no error in Munoz’s sentences.
                                         *        *         *
           AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           4
             See United States v. Mateo Garza, 541 F.3d 290, 294 (5th Cir. 2008) (“The first
   example relates to ‘carrying substantially more passengers than the rated capacity of a
   motor vehicle or vessel.’ The operative word is ‘substantially.’ It is not necessarily enough
   that a vehicle designed for four is carrying five. Probably carrying eight in the vehicle would
   be.” (internal citation omitted) (citing U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1)); United States v. Cardona-Lopez,
   602 F. App’x 191, 191-92 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished) (affirming district
   court’s application of § 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement when defendant transported fourteen
   individuals in a car rated for seven passengers, nine of the passengers were unrestrained in
   the cargo area, and defendant was speeding on a busy highway); United States v. Sanchez-
   Gaucin, 595 F. App’x 344, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (affirming
   § 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement after district court implicitly found substantial overcrowding
   based on the presence of thirty-four total occupants in a vehicle rated for carrying a
   maximum of fifteen passengers); United States v. Hernandez-Perez, 366 F. App’x 531, 532
   (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (unpublished) (affirming § 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement when
   defendant transported fifteen passengers in a vehicle rated to carry seven passengers and
   thirteen of the passengers lacked safety restraints and were lying on top of each other); see
   also United States v. Flores-Flores, 356 F.3d 861, 862-63 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding district
   court properly assessed the enhancement because the defendant “was transporting eight
   more passengers in the van than its rated capacity”).

                                                      3