Court Opinion

ID: 9415016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 18:00:39.015276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.047189
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40793         Document: 00516843365             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023

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

                                       No. 22-40793
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                  August 2, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jose Luna,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-792-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Jose Luna pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport undocumented
   aliens within the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(v)(I),
   and was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, followed by a three-year
   term of supervised release, and ordered to pay a $150,000 fine. For the first
   time on appeal, he challenges the above-guidelines fine, urging that it was

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40793      Document: 00516843365            Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                      No. 22-40793

   substantively unreasonable because the district court gave significant weight
   to irrelevant and improper factors, including his socioeconomic status and
   a prior arrest not resulting in a conviction. Luna also complains that the
   district court wholly failed to consider the factors appliable under U.S.S.G.
   § 5E1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3572.
          Because Luna did not object to the fine at sentencing, this court’s
   review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347,
   351 (5th Cir. 2008). To establish plain error, he must show a forfeited error
   that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United
   States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court
   has discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness,
   integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
          The record reflects that the district court considered the advisory
   guidelines fine range, the statutory maximum fine, the § 3553(a) factors, the
   facts set forth in the Presentence Report (PSR), Luna’s arguments in
   mitigation of sentence, and the Government’s request for an above-
   guidelines fine.     Inasmuch as Luna asserts that the district court
   impermissibly relied on his socioeconomic status to impose an above-
   guidelines fine, his argument is not well-taken.            The district court’s
   comments indicate that it did not consider Luna’s financial status in
   imposing the fine but considered the financial motivation or lack thereof as
   part of the nature and circumstances of Luna’s offense, as well as the need
   for the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, just punishment,
   and adequate deterrence, all proper considerations.              See 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 3553(a)(1), (A)(2)(A); U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at
   135.
          To the extent that Luna contends that the district court erred in failing
   to explain its specific consideration of the factors set forth in § 3572 and

                                           2
Case: 22-40793      Document: 00516843365            Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                      No. 22-40793

   § 5E1.2(d), the argument is similarly unavailing. Because the PSR did not
   recommend against imposing a fine, it did not trigger any requirement that
   the district court make express findings regarding the fine. See Brantley,
   537 F.3d at 351-52; see also United States v. Voda, 994 F.2d 149, 155 n. 14 (5th
   Cir. 1993). Implicit in the district court’s adoption of the PSR and imposition
   of a fine was its consideration of Luna’s ability to pay, based on his financial
   resources, as is required by both § 3572 and § 5E1.2(d). Luna does not now
   affirmatively assert that he cannot pay the fine. Rather, he complains that
   the district court failed to consider his “full financial picture,” including
   numerous debts he failed to disclose to the Probation Officer prior to the
   preparation of the PSR, which he now urges show that the fine imposed was
   excessive. When denying Luna’s postjudgment motions raising the same
   argument as untimely and unauthorized, the district court refused to
   consider this evidence, and we will not do so for the first time on appeal. See
   Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).
          Luna additionally argues that the district court impermissibly
   considered his “bare arrest record” when it varied upwardly from the
   guidelines fine range, citing United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 273, 278 (5th
   Cir. 2011).    Even assuming arguendo that the district court clearly or
   obviously erred in referencing Luna’s prior arrest, Luna fails to demonstrate
   that any such error amounted to reversible plain error.             Although he
   conclusionally asserts that the error affected his substantial rights, Luna
   abandons by failing to brief any argument demonstrating that, but for the
   district court’s reference to or reliance on his prior arrest, he would have
   received a lesser fine. See United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118, 122 n.7 (5th Cir.
   1996); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Puckett,
   556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 364 (5th
   Cir. 2009). Even had he briefed the argument, it would be unavailing given
   the other proper considerations on which the district court relied to impose

                                           3
Case: 22-40793     Document: 00516843365           Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                    No. 22-40793

   an above-guidelines fine and given Luna’s failure to demonstrate an inability
   to pay. See §§ 3553(a)(1), (A)(2)(A); § 5E1.2(d); Mondragon-Santiago, 564
   F.3d at 364; see also See United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 339-40 (5th
   Cir. 2011).
          Moreover, Luna makes no attempt to meet the fourth prong of plain
   error review. See United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 285 (5th Cir. 2022);
   see also Still, 102 F.3d at 122 n.7; Beasley, 798 F.2d at 118. This court has
   refused to correct plain errors “when, as here, the complaining party makes
   no showing as to the fourth prong.” United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269,
   273-74 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

                                         4