Court Opinion

ID: 9371409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 01:00:25.991973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.631843
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10464         Document: 00516647583             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10464
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                              February 15, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Victor Alfredo Bermudez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CR-440-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Victor Alfredo Bermudez appeals the above-Guidelines 30-months’
   sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to
   possess unregistered firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and possession
   of unregistered firearms, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d). He
   contends the sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10464      Document: 00516647583            Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/15/2023

                                      No. 22-10464

          Bermudez maintains his sentence was procedurally unreasonable
   because the district court failed to sufficiently explain its reasons supporting
   the upward variance. The parties dispute whether Bermudez preserved this
   challenge. Because he objected to the “substance of the sentence, but not
   the manner in which it was explained”, he failed to preserve this issue.
   United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).
          Because he did not preserve the procedural-unreasonableness 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, Bermudez must show
   a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to
   reasonable dispute) that 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.
          The court thoroughly considered Bermudez’ mitigating arguments, as
   referenced both in its Statement of Reasons and its granting the six-month
   sentencing credit he requested. The court explained, however, that a
   variance was necessary to address: the seriousness of his offense conduct;
   the Sentencing Guidelines’ failure to account for the true nature of the
   offense; the need to provide adequate deterrence given the prior leniency
   Bermudez had received; and the need to provide just punishment and protect
   the public. E.g., United States v. Sanchez, 667 F.3d 555, 568 (5th Cir. 2012)
   (upholding district court’s explanation for sentence as adequate where
   record showed it considered positions of counsel and defendant’s sentencing
   memorandum setting forth mitigating arguments).
          Inasmuch as Bermudez maintains the court should have separately or
   specifically addressed his mitigating arguments when imposing the upward

                                           2
Case: 22-10464      Document: 00516647583           Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/15/2023

                                     No. 22-10464

   variance, he fails to demonstrate the requisite clear-or-obvious procedural
   error. E.g., United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 351–52 (5th Cir. 2013)
   (holding district court did not commit procedural error by failing to
   specifically address defendant’s mitigating arguments). Even assuming the
   court’s explanation was clear-or-obvious procedural error, Bermudez does
   not contend, much less demonstrate a reasonable probability, that a more
   detailed explanation would have resulted in a lesser sentence; therefore, he
   fails to make the requisite showing that his substantial rights were affected.
   E.g., Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364–65.
          As for his substantive-reasonableness challenge, although post-
   Booker, the 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, as in
   this instance, no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection
   to an ultimate sentence, as in this instance, 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).
          Bermudez’ challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his
   sentence fails. As noted supra, the district court considered the Guidelines
   range and Bermudez’ mitigation assertions but concluded: the Guidelines
   range did not reflect the true nature of the offense conduct; and an above-
   Guidelines sentence was warranted to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
   to afford adequate deterrence, and to provide public protection. See 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A)–(C). We defer to that determination. E.g.,
   Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (“The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have
   concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify

                                          3
Case: 22-10464      Document: 00516647583          Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/15/2023

                                    No. 22-10464

   reversal of the district court.”). Along that line, and regarding his assertions
   that the district court failed to give significant weight to his history and
   characteristics, our court will not reweigh the § 3553 sentencing factors. E.g.,
   United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 435 (5th Cir. 2013) (declining to
   reweigh § 3553(a) sentencing factors on substantive-reasonableness review).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          4