Court Opinion

ID: 9384166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 00:00:35.606294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.075763
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50622         Document: 00516697060             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50622
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                March 31, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Gustavo Limon,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:21-CR-1212-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Gustavo Limon appeals the 27-month sentence of imprisonment
   imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to transport illegal
   aliens. He argues that the district court erred by denying him an adjustment
   for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Although the
   district court initially agreed with the presentence report’s application of that

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50622      Document: 00516697060           Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                     No. 22-50622

   adjustment to Limon’s sentence, the district court subsequently determined
   that Limon would not receive that adjustment. Limon did not object to the
   denial of the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
          Even when error is preserved, we review the district court’s denial of
   acceptance of responsibility using “a standard even more deferential than a
   purely clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d
   222, 227 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
   Under that standard, the district court’s denial “should not be disturbed
   unless it is without foundation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). However, we review unpreserved challenges under the plain error
   standard, which a party satisfies by showing an error that is clear or obvious–
   rather than subject to reasonable dispute–and affects his substantial rights.
   See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If the party makes that
   showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously
   affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
   Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).           The burden of
   establishing entitlement to relief for plain error is on the party claiming it.
   United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82 (2004). Meeting all four
   prongs of the plain error standard “is difficult, as it should be.” Puckett, 556
   U.S. at 135 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          On appeal, Limon concedes that he erroneously failed to refer to the
   conspiracy element for his offense of conviction during his presentence
   report interview, but he contends that the district court should have granted
   him acceptance of responsibility because he specified during that interview
   that he accepted responsibility for “this offense” and he had previously
   admitted to the conspiracy element during his criminal proceedings.
   However, Limon does not cite to any authority showing that the district court
   committed clear or obvious error in similar circumstances. See United States
   v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting that a “lack of binding

                                          2
Case: 22-50622      Document: 00516697060          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                    No. 22-50622

   authority is often dispositive in the plain-error context”). He also fails to
   address the third or fourth prong of plain error review. Thus, Limon has not
   met his burden of showing reversible plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135;
   Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 82.
          Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         3