Court Opinion

ID: 9896405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-10 19:00:32.251747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:52.047660
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10071       Document: 00516963550             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 23-10071
                                   Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                   ____________                             November 10, 2023
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                        Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Alexander Yoichi Duberek,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:21-CR-101-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Alexander Yoichi Duberek appeals the above-guidelines sentence of
   life imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to interstate domestic
   violence resulting in the death of the victim. See 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a)(1),
   (b)(1). Duberek contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-10071     Document: 00516963550           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/10/2023

                                    No. 23-10071

   unreasonable.    Specifically, he argues that the district court erred by
   determining that he did not suffer from serious coercion, blackmail, or
   duress. Therefore, he asserts, the court’s variance in this case failed to give
   proper weight to that serious coercion, blackmail, and duress and represented
   a clear error of judgment in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
          We review both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
   district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States,
   552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). At sentencing, Duberek attempted to demonstrate
   that he traveled from California to Texas to murder the victim in response to
   serious coercion, blackmail, or duress caused by the victim. The district
   court considered that evidence and concluded that it did not materially
   mitigate other sentencing factors, including the degree of premeditation and
   violence of the offense. The district court’s assessment of the limited
   persuasiveness or weight of Duberek’s evidence relative to the undisputed
   facts of the premeditated murder was not “illogical or implausible,” and
   Duberek therefore has not shown that the sentence is procedurally
   unreasonable. United States v. Hebert, 813 F. 3d 551, 561 (5th Cir. 2015)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          As to substantive reasonableness, following a detailed discussion of
   the § 3553(a) factors in light of the offense and Duberek’s evidence regarding
   his motive, the district court determined that the only reasonable sentence
   was life imprisonment. Because we are not persuaded that the district court
   erred in its weighing or balancing of the § 3553(a) factors or in determining
   that the extent of the variance was warranted, Duberek fails to show that the
   life sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51;
   United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).
          For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                         2