Court Opinion

ID: 9908106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 19:00:45.940919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:50.846140
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20059           Document: 00516993555               Page: 1       Date Filed: 12/07/2023

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

                                         ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                    December 7, 2023
                                          No. 23-20059                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                         ____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                           Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                                versus

   Alvin Woods,

                                                 Defendant—Appellant.
                        ______________________________

                        Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the Southern District of Texas
                                 USDC No. 4:20-CR-531-3
                        ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, Stewart, Circuit Judge, and Hanks,
   District Judge. ∗
   Per Curiam: **
              Alvin Woods appeals the 240-month sentence imposed by the district
   court following his guilty plea conviction of aiding and abetting kidnapping
   pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a) and 1202. He argues that the district court

              _____________________
   ∗
       United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
   ∗∗
        This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20059      Document: 00516993555          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                    No. 23-20059

   plainly erred by failing to provide him notice of its intent to upwardly depart
   from the guidelines range based in part on United States Sentencing
   Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 5K2.3, which provides for a departure for
   extreme psychological injury to the victims. Because the record wholly
   supports the sentence imposed by the district court for reasons aside from its
   upward departure under § 5K2.3, we AFFIRM.
                I. Factual & Procedural Background
           Beginning in 2019, Woods committed twelve home invasions of multi-
   million-dollar houses with multiple accomplices. Woods and his accomplices
   researched and selected certain homes as targets in advance of their criminal
   invasions. When they carried out an invasion on a targeted home, they used
   guns, pepper spray, and zip ties to tie up their victims and force them to
   comply with their demands, while they ransacked the homes for cash,
   jewelry, and other valuables.
           In one home invasion, Woods and his codefendant bound a woman
   and carried her to a safe in her home and demanded the combination. When
   she stated that she did not know the combination, they began threatening her
   eleven-year-old child, ultimately brutally pepper-spraying the child in front
   of her and forcing her to watch. In another home invasion, a husband and wife
   were zip-tied and forced to lay side by side on the kitchen floor. Both victims
   later stated that they were convinced they were going to die and said what
   they assumed would be their final words to each other, all while agonizing
   over the safety of their eighteen-month-old child who was sleeping upstairs.
   In subsequent Victim Impact Statements, the victims described the long-
   term emotional toll that Woods’s and his accomplices’ offenses took on
   them.
           On the night of the offense that is the subject of this appeal, Woods
   and his two accomplices parked near the victims’ residence wearing black

                                         2
Case: 23-20059     Document: 00516993555           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                    No. 23-20059

   clothing and masks. They then entered the home, threatened the victims with
   guns, zip-tied their wrists and ankles, and demanded money and access to
   their safe. They stole money, other valuable items, and unsuccessfully
   attempted to steal the victims’ vehicle. Police later pulled over Woods in his
   vehicle and found a backpack that had black clothing, zip ties, duct tape,
   ammunition, and a ring belonging to one of the victims he had just robbed.
          A superseding indictment charged Woods and two codefendants with
   three counts of aiding and abetting kidnapping, stemming from their string of
   home invasion robberies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a) and 1202.
   Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Woods pleaded guilty to Count 3, the
   sole count in which he was named. He did not waive his appellate rights as
   part of his plea agreement.
          A probation officer determined that Woods’s guidelines range of
   imprisonment was 151 to 188 months, based on his total offense level of 31
   and criminal history category of IV. However, the Presentence Investigation
   Report (“PSR”) further recommended that the district court consider an
   upward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21, which pertains to
   dismissed and uncharged conduct, to reflect the actual seriousness of the
   offense. This recommendation was based on Woods’s disturbing and violent
   conduct that was not charged and, therefore, did not factor into the
   guidelines calculations. The PSR specifically noted that Woods took part in
   two additional home invasion robberies and kidnappings with his
   codefendants where he was armed with a handgun, restrained the victims,
   stole money and jewelry, and pepper-sprayed some of the victims. Attached
   to the PSR were victim impact statements of victims from two of the three
   robberies. Woods did not object to the PSR.
          The district court adopted the PSR. Then, having heard the parties’
   sentencing arguments, the district court stated that it was upwardly departing

                                         3
Case: 23-20059         Document: 00516993555               Page: 4      Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                          No. 23-20059

   pursuant to § 5K2.21 and sentenced Woods to 240 months of imprisonment
   and four years of supervised release. The district court further ordered
   Woods to pay $903,941 in restitution. Woods did not object to his sentence.
   He then filed this appeal.
                              II. Standard of Review
           Although both parties assert that plain error review applies because
   Woods did not object to the § 5K2.3 departure, it is unclear from the record
   whether Woods had sufficient opportunity to object to the departure during
   sentencing. 1 See, e.g., United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir.
   2020) (“If [the defendant] had th[e] chance [to object before the district
   court] but failed to do so, we review for plain error. If he did not have the
   opportunity, we review for abuse of discretion.” (internal citations and
   citations omitted)); United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 935 (5th
   Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, we need not decide which standard of review
   applies here because Woods cannot prevail under the more lenient abuse-of-
   discretion standard and thus consequently, neither could he prevail under the
   plain error standard.
                                     III. Discussion

           _____________________
           1
              The district court explicitly stated it was departing pursuant to § 5K2.21 based on
   Woods’s uncharged conduct and proceeded to discuss that conduct and its effect on
   Woods’s guidelines range, determining that the departure range would have applied if
   Woods had been convicted of the uncharged offenses. The district court concluded that
   the departure accounted for Woods’s additional robberies, his criminal history, and his
   prior sentences, and that it “recognized the severe emotional and physical harm” to the
   victims. The district court did not, however, explicitly refer to § 5K2.3 or use the language
   of that Guideline, which provides for a departure for extreme psychological injury,
   described as psychological injury “much more serious” than would normally result. It was
   only in its Statement of Reasons provided in its written judgment, which was prepared after
   the oral sentencing hearing had concluded, that the district court expressly indicated that
   it was departing in part based on § 5K2.3.

                                                 4
Case: 23-20059      Document: 00516993555          Page: 5   Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                    No. 23-20059

          On appeal, Woods argues that the district court plainly erred by failing
   to give notice of all grounds for the upward departure, including those based
   on § 5K2.3. He argues that the error affected his substantial rights because,
   if he had proper notice, he could have challenged the district court’s finding
   that the victims suffered extreme psychological harm and potentially
   received a lower sentence. Specifically, he asserts that he would have argued
   that the psychological injuries suffered by the victims were not more serious
   than would normally result from the commission of the offense and,
   therefore, did not justify an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3. He
   argues that this court should exercise its discretion to correct the error
   because we have previously done so in other cases, and reversal would
   require only resentencing and not a retrial. We are unpersuaded.
          There are three types of sentences: (1) a sentence within a properly
   calculated guidelines range, (2) a sentence that includes a departure as
   authorized by the Guidelines, and (3) a non-guideline sentence, or a variance,
   that is outside of the Guidelines. United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349
   (5th Cir. 2008). Under U.S.S.G. § 6A1.4 and Federal Rule of Criminal
   Procedure 32(h), a defendant is entitled to notice before the district court
   departs from the guidelines range. The Guidelines and criminal procedure
   rules state that before the court can depart on a ground not identified for
   departure in the presentence report or a party’s prehearing submission, it
   “must give the parties reasonable notice that it is contemplating such a
   departure.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.4.
          A district court must provide with specificity written reasons for the
   upward departure, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2), U.S.S.G.
   § 5K2.0(e), p.s., and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(3). Here, the district court’s
   Statement of Reasons, which were part of its written judgment, explicitly
   provided that the sentence was an upward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G.
   § 5K2.21 and § 5K2.3, which involves extreme psychological injury.

                                          5
Case: 23-20059     Document: 00516993555           Page: 6   Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                    No. 23-20059

   Additionally, Woods received written notice in the PSR of a potential upward
   departure pursuant to § 5K2.21 based on his dismissed conduct, specifically
   his participation in two additional home invasion robberies and kidnappings
   where he pepper-sprayed the victims.
          The question thus becomes whether Woods received sufficient notice
   that the district court intended to upwardly depart in part based on § 5K2.3.
   We need not resolve this question, however, as any error in the procedure
   employed in the sentencing proceedings below was harmless because it did
   not affect Woods’s sentence. See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d
   750, 753 (5th Cir. 2009) (“A procedural error during sentencing is harmless
   if the error did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence
   imposed.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
          Our review of the sentencing transcript in this case shows that the
   district court’s upward departure was based almost entirely on Woods’s
   uncharged conduct, namely, his other kidnappings and robberies, as well as
   his disturbing and violent criminal history. In particular, the district court
   concluded that the range of 151 to 188 months failed to account for Woods’s
   conduct in the other two home invasions and if he had been convicted of all
   three robberies in which he participated that were the subject of the
   superseding indictment, his guidelines range of imprisonment would have
   been 210 to 262 months. The court then concluded that a sentence of 240
   months would be the lowest reasonable sentence based on Woods’s conduct

                                         6
Case: 23-20059          Document: 00516993555             Page: 7      Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                           No. 23-20059

   and criminal history. 2 Just prior to these statements, the court also cited
   Woods’s “history of similar violent armed robberies,” which resulted in two
   prior convictions in 1993 where he received concurrent 22-year prison
   sentences, and his commission of another robbery shortly after his release,
   for which he received a two-year sentence.
          Accordingly, the record indicates that the district court expressly
   departed and selected the range of 210 to 262 months based on Woods’s
   uncharged conduct pursuant to § 5K2.21. The district court also focused
   heavily on Woods’s criminal history and the failure of prior sentences to
   deter him. It made only one passing reference to the harm to the victims.
   Thus, notwithstanding the additional selection of § 5K2.3 in the district
   court’s Statement of Reasons, the district court’s statements at sentencing
   reflect that the psychological harm to the victims was only ancillary to the
   other reasons it used to support its decision to depart from the range, i.e.,
   Woods’s extensive disturbing and violent criminal history and the failure of
   his prior sentences to deter his criminal coneduct. Consequently, we hold
   that any lack of notice of the district court’s ground for departure under

          _____________________
          2
              The district court stated at sentencing:
                 Pursuant to guideline section 5K 2.21, the [c]ourt believes that
                 the lowest reasonable sentence based on the defendant’s
                 conduct and criminal history is to depart upward and to sentence
                 the defendant to 240 months in custody. This would be the
                 sentence even if his guideline range was based on III rather than
                 IV criminal history points. This departure accounts for the two
                 additional robberies the defendant committed with the co-
                 defendants, which are outside the count of conviction. The
                 [departure also accounts for the] defendant’s history of similar
                 robberies and the lengthy sentence of imprisonment that failed
                 to deter the defendant and also recognizes the severe emotional
                 and physical harm caused to the victims in this case. I sentence
                 you therefore to 240 months in custody.

                                                 7
Case: 23-20059     Document: 00516993555           Page: 8   Date Filed: 12/07/2023

                                    No. 23-20059

   § 5K2.3 was harmless because it did not affect Woods’s sentence. See
   Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d at 753.
                               IV. Conclusion
          For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Woods’s sentence as
   imposed by the district court.

                                         8