Court Opinion

ID: 9353376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 19:00:59.388033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:41.942305
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-50627         Document: 00516605947             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/11/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 21-50627
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               January 11, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jesse Anthony Heredia,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:19-CR-1075-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Jesse Anthony Heredia pled guilty to possession with the intent to
   distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable
   amount of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
   (b)(1)(B). Based upon the determination that he was a career offender
   pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court sentenced him to 188 months
   of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal,
         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-50627       Document: 00516605947           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/11/2023

                                      No. 21-50627

   Heredia argues, and the Government concedes, that the district court erred
   by sentencing him as a career offender.
            Because Heredia did not object to the career offender enhancement in
   the district court, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Huerra,
   884 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2018). To prevail, Heredia must show (1) an error
   (2) that is clear or obvious, (3) that affects his substantial rights, and (4) that
   “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings.” United States v. Blanco, 27 F.4th 375, 380 (5th Cir. 2022)
   (quotation marks and citation omitted).
            The Guidelines assign a higher base offense level for certain career
   offenders who have “at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of
   violence or a controlled substance offense.” § 4B1.1(a); see also § 4B1.1(b).
   In this case, the district court designated Heredia as a career offender based,
   in part, on Heredia’s prior Texas conviction for delivery of cocaine, which
   the court treated as a “controlled substance offense.” As the Government
   concedes, though, that conviction does not qualify as a “controlled substance
   offense” under this court’s precedent and thus does not support the
   application of the career offender enhancement.             See United States v.
   Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir.), supplemented by 854 F.3d 284 (5th Cir.
   2017); United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569, 574–77 (5th Cir. 2016). This
   was an obvious error. See United States v. Zuniga, 860 F.3d 276, 286 (5th Cir.
   2017).
            The Government concedes that, without the career offender
   enhancement, Heredia’s applicable guidelines range would have been 110 to
   137 months of imprisonment. In contrast, the district court’s application of
   the career offender enhancement resulted in a guidelines range of 188 to 235
   months of imprisonment, and the district court sentenced Heredia to 188
   months of imprisonment, at the bottom of that range. The district court said

                                           2
Case: 21-50627         Document: 00516605947              Page: 3       Date Filed: 01/11/2023

                                          No. 21-50627

   nothing to suggest that it would have imposed a 188-month sentence
   regardless of the guidelines range. To the contrary, the district court
   explicitly acknowledged that it was the career offender enhancement that was
   “really hurting” Heredia at sentencing. Under these circumstances, the
   career offender enhancement impacted Heredia’s substantial rights, as the
   Government concedes. See Zuniga, 860 F.3d at 286. We further hold that
   the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
   judicial    proceedings,       particularly      considering       the    Government’s
   concessions. See id.
           We AFFIRM Heredia’s conviction, VACATE his sentence, and
   REMAND to the district court for resentencing. 1

           _____________________
           1
             Because we are vacating and remanding his entire sentence, we do not reach
   Heredia’s argument concerning the dangerous weapon enhancement under U.S.S.G.
   § 2D1.1(b)(1). See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 377 n.62 (5th Cir. 2005). As for
   Heredia’s request that we reassign the case to a different judge on remand, we deny that
   request because we are not persuaded that the district court is “unable to exercise impartial
   judgment” on resentencing. United States v. Williams, 400 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2005).

                                                3