Court Opinion

ID: 9941569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 16:01:47.906715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:46.730977
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13666    Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 02/16/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13666
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       HERIBERTO BATISTA MONTIJO,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00075-SPC-NPM-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13666            Document: 33-1        Date Filed: 02/16/2024         Page: 2 of 7

       2                           Opinion of the Court                         22-13666

       Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Heriberto Batista Montijo appeals his total sentence of 600
       months’ imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty to two
       counts of production of child pornography and one count of
       possession of child pornography. He argues that the district court
       engaged in impermissible double counting when it imposed a five-
       level guidelines enhancement under both U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) 1
       and § 4B1.5(b)(1). 2 After review, we affirm.
                                       I.      Background
              In 2021, a grand jury indicted Batista Montijo on two counts
       of production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
       § 2251(a) and (e) (Counts 1 and 2), and one count of possession of
       child pornography, in violation of § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) (Count

       1 Section 2G2.2(b)(5) instructs the district court to increase the guidelines level

       by five levels “[i]f the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the
       sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.”
       2 Section 4B1.5 provides that

               [i]n any case in which the defendant’s instant offense of
               conviction is a covered sex crime, neither § 4B1.1 nor
               subsection (a) of this guideline applies, and the defendant
               engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual
               conduct: . . . [t]he offense level shall be 5 plus the offense level
               determined under Chapters Two and Three.
       U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1).
USCA11 Case: 22-13666         Document: 33-1         Date Filed: 02/16/2024         Page: 3 of 7

       22-13666                   Opinion of the Court                                3

       3). Batista Montijo entered an open plea of guilty to all three
       counts.
              Prior to sentencing, the United States Probation Office
       prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSI”). As relevant to
       this appeal, the probation office imposed a five-level guidelines
       enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) because Batista Montijo
       “engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or
       exploitation of a minor.” The probation office then assessed
       another five-level guidelines enhancement under § 4B1.5(b)(1)
       because the offense was a covered sex crime, neither §4B1.1 nor
       § 4B1.5(a) applied, and Batista Montijo engaged in a repeated
       “pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct” by
       engaging in repeated sexual activity with minors E.H. and I.S.
       Batista Montijo’s total offense level after consideration of all
       applicable guidelines enhancements and a three-point reduction for
       acceptance of responsibility was 51. However, under the
       guidelines an offense level of more than 43 is treated as an offense
       level of 43 because 43 is the maximum offense level under the
       guidelines. 3 An offense level of 43 with Batista Montijo’s criminal
       history category of I resulted in an advisory guidelines range of 960
       months’ imprisonment, which was also the statutory maximum for
       all counts if the counts were imposed consecutively. 4

       3 See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Part A (cmt. 2).

       4 Batista Montijo’s base offense level of 43 and his criminal history category of

       I resulted in a guidelines range of life under the sentencing table. However,
       where, as here, “the statutorily authorized maximum sentence is less than the
USCA11 Case: 22-13666      Document: 33-1       Date Filed: 02/16/2024     Page: 4 of 7

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13666

             Batista Montijo objected to the application of the five-level
       enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(5) and the five-level enhancement
       under § 4B1.5(b)(1) as improper “double counting,” arguing that
       they were effectively the same enhancement and accounted for the
       same conduct. He acknowledged that he did not have any case law
       to support his position.
              The district court overruled Batista Montijo’s objection,
       explaining that § 2G2.2 was an enhancement for possession of child
       pornography offenses, while § 4B1.5 was an enhancement
       designed to address repeat and dangerous sex offenders. Thus, the
       court concluded that there was no impermissible double counting
       because
              [a]lthough both enhancement[s] consider a
              defendant’s pattern of prohibited sexual conduct,
              they concern conceptually separate notions. So
              Sections 2G2.2(b)(5) focuses on the substantive
              oﬀense of possessing child pornography oﬀenses and
              hones in on the defendants who directly abuse
              minors, whereas, 4B1.5(b) focuses on a defendant’s
              history, risk to the community and deterrence and
              adds levels for those defendants who are repeat and
              dangerous sex oﬀenders against minors.

       minimum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily authorized
       maximum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.” U.S.S.G. §§ 5G1.1(a),
       5G1.2(b) cmt. (n.3(B)), 5G1.2(d).
USCA11 Case: 22-13666     Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 02/16/2024    Page: 5 of 7

       22-13666              Opinion of the Court                        5

       The court then sentenced Batista Montijo to a below-guidelines
       total sentence of 600 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a
       lifetime of supervised release. This appeal followed.
                                 II.    Discussion
              Batista Montijo argues that increasing his offense level five
       levels under both §§ 2G2.2(b)(5) and 4B1.5(b)(1) constituted
       impermissible double counting for the same harm.
              “We review de novo a claim of double counting.” United
       States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1226 (11th Cir. 2006). Batista
       Montijo’s claim is foreclosed by binding precedent. As we
       explained in United States v. Rogers,
             [i]mpermissible double counting occurs only when
             one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase a
             defendant’s punishment on account of a kind of
             harm that has already been fully accounted for by
             application of another part of the Guidelines.
             Double counting is permitted, however, if the
             Sentencing Commission intended that result and
             each guideline section in question concerns
             conceptually separate notions relating to sentencing.
             We presume that the Sentencing Commission
             intended separate guidelines sections to apply
             cumulatively, unless speciﬁcally directed otherwise.

             Section 4B1.5(b)(1) provides that:
                  In any case in which the defendant’s instant
                  oﬀense of conviction is a covered sex crime
USCA11 Case: 22-13666    Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 02/16/2024     Page: 6 of 7

       6                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13666

                . . . and the defendant engaged in a pattern of
                activity involving prohibited sexual conduct:
                    (1) The oﬀense level shall be 5 plus the
                    oﬀense level determined under Chapters
                    Two and Three.
             U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the
             plain language of the guidelines establishes that the
             Sentencing Commission intended for the
             enhancements provided for in Chapter 4 to apply
             cumulatively to any other enhancements from
             Chapters 2 and 3. Accordingly, the application of
             U.S.S.G. §§ 2G2.2(b)(5) and 4B1.5 is not impermissible
             double counting . . . .
       989 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotations and internal
       citations omitted).
             Batista Montijo’s contention that Rogers is distinguishable
       because it was decided on plain error review is unpersuasive. Our
       holding in Rogers was premised on the conclusion that there was
       no error, much less plain error, because the enhancements in
       U.S.S.G. §§ 2G2.2(b)(5) and 4B1.5 were intended to apply
       cumulatively and do not constitute impermissible double
       counting. That holding applies equally here even though Batista
       Montijo’s claim is subject to de novo review.
              Moreover, even assuming arguendo that there was error,
       Batista Montijo is not entitled to relief because any error was
       harmless. Even if Batista Montijo was correct and he should have
       received only one five-level enhancement, his offense level would
USCA11 Case: 22-13666     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 02/16/2024    Page: 7 of 7

       22-13666               Opinion of the Court                        7

       have been 46, which still would have been treated as a 43 under the
       guidelines. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (cmt. n.2). Thus, any error
       was harmless. See United States v. Sanchez, 30 F.4th 1063, 1076 (11th
       Cir.), cert. denied 143 S. Ct. 227 (2022) (holding that any error in
       applying an enhancement was harmless because “the countable
       offense level would remain the same: 43”); United States v. Sarras,
       575 F.3d 1191, 1220 n.39 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that any
       alleged error in applying the enhancement in question was
       harmless because the defendant’s “total adjusted offense level
       would have been 46, which the district court still would have been
       obligated to treat as 43”). Accordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.