Court Opinion

ID: 9841498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 18:00:27.364242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:29.335302
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10173         Document: 00516904839             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/22/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10173
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                             September 22, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                     Petitioner—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Alfonso Garcia-Vela,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-265-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Alfonso Garcia-Vela pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United
   States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
   He was sentenced to 82 months of imprisonment, which the district court
   stated was the result of an upward departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
   § 4A1.3(a), or, alternatively, an upward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10173     Document: 00516904839           Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                    No. 23-10173

          On appeal, Garcia contends that his above-guidelines sentence was
   substantively unreasonable. His appellate argument is perfunctory and
   conclusory, consisting of a single paragraph in which he complains that the
   district court erroneously relied on facts surrounding his criminal history
   which were already accounted for in the guideline calculations and that the
   upward variance represented a clear error of judgment in balancing the
   sentencing factors.
          Although he acknowledges that his sentence was the result of
   a guidelines-authorized upward departure or, alternatively, an upward
   variance, Garcia briefs no argument challenging his sentence as an upward
   departure under § 4A1.3(a). He has therefore abandoned any such challenge.
   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).
          Even were that not so, and assuming that his perfunctory briefing is
   sufficient to preserve an appellate substantive reasonableness challenge, cf.
   Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-
   47 (5th Cir. 2010); Beasley, 798 F.2d at 118, Garcia fails to demonstrate any
   abuse of discretion on the district court’s part. See United States v. Cano,
   981 F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2020).          His argument to the contrary
   notwithstanding, the district court was permitted to consider factors already
   incorporated by the Guidelines—including criminal history—in concluding
   that an upward variance was appropriate. See United States v. Brantley,
   537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801,
   809 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court cited Garcia’s lengthy and
   violent criminal history which had not been deterred by prior prison terms to
   conclude that a variance was warranted based on the need to protect the
   public and provide adequate deterrence, which are appropriate factors under
   § 3553(a).

                                         2
Case: 23-10173        Document: 00516904839         Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/22/2023

                                     No. 23-10173

            Garcia’s complaint that the district court committed a clear error of
   judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors is no more than a request to have
   this court reweigh those factors and conclude that a different sentence was
   appropriate, which this court will not do. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
   38, 51 (2007); United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 435 (5th Cir. 2013). His
   disagreement with the district court’s assessment of the factors and the
   selected sentence does not show that his sentence is substantively
   unreasonable. See United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 154 (5th Cir.
   2011).
            For the first time on appeal, Garcia also challenges the enhancement
   of his sentence pursuant to § 1326(b). He contends that his sentence exceeds
   the statutory maximum and is therefore unconstitutional because it was
   enhanced based on facts that were neither alleged in the indictment nor found
   by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges this argument is
   foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but
   seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Garcia is correct that
   his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54
   (5th Cir. 2019).
            The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          3