Court Opinion

ID: 9947542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 01:00:39.411274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:33.747721
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50469           Document: 50-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/04/2024

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

                                   No. 23-50469
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                                  March 4, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar
                                 ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Eleacer Huerta, Jr.,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 7:22-CR-282-1
                  ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Eleacer Huerta, Jr., appeals the 360-month sentence of imprisonment
imposed following his guilty plea conviction for two counts of possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon and one count of possession with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. He argues that the
district court committed a procedural error when applying an upward

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50469        Document: 50-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                 No. 23-50469

departure and that the imposed sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Although he also contends that the armed career criminal sentencing
enhancement violated his constitutional rights because the facts establishing
that he committed the predicate offenses were not charged in the indictment
and admitted by him or proved beyond a reasonable doubt, he correctly
concedes that this challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Valencia, 66
F.4th 1032, 1033 (5th Cir. 2023), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Sept. 12, 2023)
(No. 23-5606).
       Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review
sentences for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir.
2009). In conducting this review, we must “first ensure that the district
court committed no significant procedural error.” Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If the sentencing court did not commit procedural error,
we apply an abuse of discretion standard to determine if the sentence is
substantively reasonable. Id.
       As Huerta did not raise his procedural challenge to the upward
departure in district court, plain-error review applies. Under that standard,
Huerta must first show an error that is clear or obvious–rather than subject
to reasonable dispute–and affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the
discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”         Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
       In this case, Huerta’s criminal history category was VI and his total
offense level was 34, resulting in an advisory guideline range of imprisonment
of 262 to 327 months. The district court determined that an upward
departure was warranted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(4)(B) because Huerta’s

                                       2
Case: 23-50469        Document: 50-1        Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                  No. 23-50469

criminal history category substantially underrepresented the seriousness of
his criminal history and the likelihood that he will commit other crimes. On
appeal, Huerta first argues that the district court erred by failing to follow the
proper § 4A1.3 methodology by moving incrementally down the sentencing
table to the next total offense level and state for the record that it had
considered each intermediate offense level before reaching the appropriate
range. However, the next incremental step down the sentencing table to a
total offense level of 35 results in an advisory range of 292 to 365 months of
imprisonment, which encompasses the 360-month term of imprisonment
imposed on Huerta.        Because this would follow the proper § 4A1.3
methodology and involve no intermediate offense levels, Huerta’s challenge
fails because he cannot show clear error in this regard. See Puckett, 556 U.S.
at 135. In any event, “it is well settled that a district court does not need to
go through a ritualistic exercise in which it mechanically discusses each
criminal history category it rejects en route to the category that it selects, and
that the court’s reasons for rejecting intermediate categories will be quite
apparent in its stated reasons for departure.” United States v. Zuniga-Peralta,
442 F.3d 345, 348 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
       Huerta next argues that the district court erred under § 4A1.3(c)(1) by
failing to provide specific reasons in writing as to why the upward departure
was justified.   However, the district court’s reasoning for the upward
departure under § 4A1.3(a)(4)(B) was sufficiently evident in light of the
adopted PSR and its statements at sentencing. See Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d
at 347. Moreover, contrary to Huerta’s assertions, the sentencing court
referenced the nature of his criminal history several times and did not focus
solely on the number of his prior convictions. See § 4A1.3, comment.
(n.2(B)).

                                        3
Case: 23-50469       Document: 50-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/04/2024

                                 No. 23-50469

       Huerta’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence
was preserved for appeal by defense counsel’s request for a within-guidelines
sentence. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67
(2020). In this case, the district court properly considered the relevant 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the facts of the case in determining that an
upward departure was warranted. Because nothing suggests that the district
court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight,
gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of
judgment in balancing the sentencing factors, Huerta has failed to establish
an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213, 221 (5th
Cir. 2014).
       Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                      4