Court Opinion

ID: 9913779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 19:00:37.288049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:33.697785
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40732         Document: 00517015255             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023

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

                                                                               FILED
                                       No. 22-40732
                                                                       December 28, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Walter Yovany Molina-Mendoza,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-756-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Walter Yovany Molina-Mendoza pleaded guilty to illegally reentering
   the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (outlining
   illegal reentry) and (b) (outlining penalties). He was sentenced to a within-
   Guidelines 57-months’ sentence.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40732      Document: 00517015255           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/28/2023

                                     No. 22-40732

          He asserts the court erred by, based on his three-year sentence for
   possessing a deadly weapon in a penal institution, assessing three criminal-
   history points under Guideline § 4A1.1(a) (adding “3 points for each prior
   sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month”); and
   applying an eight-level enhancement under Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(3)(B)
   (“increas[ing] by 8 levels” if sentence for felony conviction was “two years
   or more”). He contends: in the light of the credit he received for time
   served, the Government failed to establish, by a preponderance of evidence,
   he served a term of imprisonment for the deadly-weapon offense. Molina
   maintains this erroneously increased his Guidelines sentencing range,
   therefore, affecting his substantial rights.
          Because Molina did not preserve these issues in district court, review
   is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th
   Cir. 2012). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear-
   or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected
   his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If
   he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain
   error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
   integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).
          Our court granted the Government’s unopposed motion to
   supplement the record on appeal with state records regarding Molina’s
   serving the deadly-weapon sentence. We consider “whether there is plain
   error at the time of appellate consideration”; therefore, we review the record
   as supplemented on appeal. United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327, 332
   (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
          The record, as supplemented, shows Molina served at least some
   period of imprisonment for the deadly-weapon offense. Accordingly, he has
   not shown the requisite clear-or-obvious error in the district court’s assessing

                                           2
Case: 22-40732     Document: 00517015255           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/28/2023

                                    No. 22-40732

   three criminal-history points for his prior three-year, deadly-weapon
   sentence. E.g., United States v. Carlile, 884 F.3d 554, 557–59 (5th Cir. 2018)
   (applying plain-error review to whether court erred in “calculating
   [defendant]’s criminal history score”).
          Likewise, he fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error in the
   court’s   applying   the   eight-level    enhancement.       See   Guideline
   § 2L1.2(b)(3)(B) & cmt. n.2 (defining “[s]entence imposed” as “sentence of
   imprisonment” from Guideline § 4A1.2 Application Note 2); Guideline
   § 4A1.2 cmt. n.2 (“To qualify as a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant
   must have actually served a period of imprisonment on such sentence . . . .
   [C]riminal history points are based on the sentence pronounced, not the
   length of time actually served.”); United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d
   227, 229–31 (5th Cir. 2009) (applying plain-error review).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3