Court Opinion

ID: 9353377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 19:01:00.631619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:43.589841
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50049           Document: 00516606423             Page: 1       Date Filed: 01/11/2023

                United States Court of Appeals
                     for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit
                                         No. 22-50049
                                       Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                                                                  January 11, 2023
                                                                                    Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                             Clerk

                                                                         Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                               versus

   Salvador Gonzales,

                                                                     Defendant—Appellant.

                        Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the Western District of Texas
                                 USDC No. 7:21-CR-245-1

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
            Defendant-Appellant Salvador Gonzales pleaded guilty to the charge
   of possession of a firearm by a felon. The court sentenced him to 78 months
   in prison and three years of supervised release—all within the guideline
   range.

            *
                This decision is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50049      Document: 00516606423           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50049

          Gonzales appeals the four-level sentence enhancement for the firearm
   having an altered or obliterated serial number. Gonzales also contends that
   the district court committed significant procedural error by applying the
   enhancement without providing him notice as required by Federal Rule of
   Criminal Procedure 32.
          We review the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines
   de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Jones, 927 F.3d
   895, 896 (5th Cir. 2019). Section 2K2.1(b)(4) applies a four-level
   enhancement to a defendant’s base offense level “[i]f any firearm . . . had an
   altered or obliterated serial number.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4); see United
   States v. Perez, 585 F.3d 880, 883-85 (5th Cir. 2009). In making its factual
   findings relative to the § 2K2.1(b)(4) enhancement, the district court could
   consider any information having “sufficient indicia of reliability” to support
   its probable accuracy, including Gonzales’s presentence report (PSR).
   United States v. Taylor, 277 F.3d 721, 724 (5th Cir. 2001).
          Gonzales does not challenge the district court’s finding that the serial
   number was scratched. He instead contends that the serial number was not
   “altered” or “obliterated” because it was readable. But the readability of the
   serial number does not refute the district court’s finding. See United States
   v. Jones, 927 F.3d 895, 897 (5th Cir. 2019) (upholding enhancement when
   “an attempt to scratch the serial number off of a firearm made accurate
   information less accessible, even though the serial number was ‘actually
   readable.’”). The district court’s application of a four-level enhancement for
   an altered or obliterated serial number under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) was not
   clearly erroneous. See id.
          We review Gonzales’s Rule 32 procedural error claim for plain error,
   because he did not raise this claim of error in the district court. See United
   States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir. 2001). To satisfy the
   plain error standard, Gonzales must demonstrate a plain or obvious error that
   affects his substantial rights. United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585

                                           2
Case: 22-50049       Document: 00516606423           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/11/2023

                                      No. 22-50049

   (5th Cir. 2021). “To show that an error affects a defendant’s substantial
   rights, the defendant must show that it affected the outcome in the district
   court.” United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir.
   2009).
            Rule 32 sets forth various requirements for sentencing, including that
   the presentence report “identify all applicable guidelines and policy
   statements of the Sentencing Commission.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d)(1)(A).
   However, even assuming, arguendo, that the district court plainly erred by
   failing to provide advance notice that the § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement was
   being considered, Gonzales has not demonstrated that any error in denying
   him notice would have affected his substantial rights.
            To show that his substantial rights were affected by the district court’s
   putative error, Gonzales would have needed to claim or otherwise indicate
   how he would have succeeded in defeating application of the enhancement.
   See United States v. Stanford, 823 F.3d 814, 848 (5th Cir. 2016). As stated
   above, Gonzales does not challenge the district court’s finding that the serial
   number was scratched, and that finding was sufficient to support application
   of the enhancement.
            Defendant-Appellant’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

                                            3