Court Opinion

ID: 9590959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:00:30.739765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:05.549796
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50978        Document: 00516865907             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/21/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50978
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 21, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Luis Alberto Hernandez-Perez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-166-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Luis Alberto Hernandez-Perez contests the, inter alia, 71-months’
   imprisonment sentence imposed subsequent to his guilty plea to illegal
   reentry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (prohibiting
   reentry of removed aliens). After sustaining Hernandez’ objection, the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50978      Document: 00516865907           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                     No. 22-50978

   district court recalculated his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to be 57
   to 71-months’ imprisonment.
          Hernandez maintains the court erred by improperly applying a
   presumption of reasonableness to the advisory sentencing range and
   imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. He further contends our
   court should not apply a presumption of reasonableness to his sentence
   because Guideline § 2L1.2 (outlining Guidelines for “Unlawfully Entering or
   Remaining in the United States”) lacks an empirical basis, and raises the
   constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b).
          Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
   the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
   calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
   38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
   objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
   under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-
   Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
   preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de
   novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
   Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
          Hernandez raises a procedural sentencing error by contending the
   district court improperly applied a presumption of reasonableness to a
   within-Guidelines sentence. E.g., United States v. King, 541 F.3d 1143, 1144–
   45 (5th Cir. 2008) (applying plain-error standard of review to a claim of
   procedural sentencing error not preserved in district court).            Because
   Hernandez did not raise this issue 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, Hernandez must show a forfeited plain error
   (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that

                                           2
Case: 22-50978      Document: 00516865907           Page: 3     Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                     No. 22-50978

   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).
          The district court concluded the advisory Guidelines sentencing
   range was fair and reasonable; it did not expressly apply a presumption of
   reasonableness or require Hernandez to prove extraordinary circumstances
   before imposing a non-Guidelines sentence. See King, 541 F.3d at 1145.
   There is no indication the court improperly applied a presumption of
   reasonableness to the sentencing range. Therefore, Hernandez has not
   shown the requisite clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          Hernandez preserved his substantive reasonableness challenge by
   advocating for a shorter sentence than imposed by the district court;
   therefore, as discussed above, our court reviews for an abuse of discretion.
   See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766–67 (2020) (“A
   defendant . . . , by advocating for a particular sentence, . . . has thereby
   informed the court of the legal error at issue . . . .”). After correctly
   calculating the advisory Guidelines sentencing range and considering the
   recommendations in the presentence investigation report, counsel’s
   assertions, Hernandez’ allocution, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
   factors, the district court concluded a sentence within the advisory
   Guidelines sentencing range was appropriate.               Hernandez’ within-
   Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable.           See United States v.
   Naidoo, 995 F.3d 367, 382 (5th Cir. 2021).           His contentions that the
   Guidelines sentencing range overrepresented his criminal offense and
   history, and that the district court did not adequately consider he fled to the
   United States to escape harm, are insufficient to rebut that presumption. He
   essentially asks our court to reweigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

                                           3
Case: 22-50978      Document: 00516865907           Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/21/2023

                                     No. 22-50978

   factors and substitute our judgment on appeal, which our court will not do.
   E.g., United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017).
          Further, as Hernandez concedes, his contention our court should not
   afford a presumption of reasonableness to his sentence because Guideline
   § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-
   Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir. 2009) (applying the appellate
   presumption despite defendant’s assertions Guideline § 2L1.2 lacks
   empirical basis). He raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review.
          Finally, Hernandez contends 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional
   because it permits a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory
   maximum based on facts not alleged in the indictment or found by a jury
   beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes this contention is foreclosed by
   Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 239–46 (1998)
   (holding existence of prior aggravated-felony conviction is “sentencing
   factor” a court, rather than jury, can determine). See United States v. Pervis,
   937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019) (“It remains the case that the district
   court can resolve the question of a prior conviction, and so we reject
   [defendant]’s argument.”); United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th
   Cir. 2014). This issue is raised to preserve it for possible further review.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          4