Court Opinion

ID: 9400894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 18:02:13.717767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.743945
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50573          Document: 00516780714             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

               United States Court of Appeals
                    for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                       ____________                                FILED
                                                                                June 9, 2023
                                         No. 22-50573
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                       ____________
                                                                                   Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                        Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                              versus

   Jamie Mendoza,

                                                Defendant—Appellant.
                       ______________________________

                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the Western District of Texas
                                 USDC No. 4:22-CR-65-1
                       ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Stephen A. Higginson:*
           Jamie Mendoza pleaded guilty to transportation of illegal aliens and
   was sentenced within the guidelines range to 24 months of imprisonment.1

           _____________________
           *
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

           1
              Mendoza pleaded guilty to count 2 of his indictment, charging him with
   transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) & (B)(ii), which
   carries a 5-year maximum sentence. However, his judgment states that he is guilty under 8
   U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) & (B)(i), which carries a 10-year maximum sentence, for
   transporting illegal aliens for financial gain. The record does not reflect a finding by the
   court that Mendoza acted for financial gain. Nonetheless, the parties do not acknowledge
Case: 22-50573       Document: 00516780714             Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                        No. 22-50573

   The district court applied an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
   2L1.1(b)(6) because, according to Mendoza’s presentence report (PSR), he
   fled from Border Patrol agents, well exceeding the posted speed limit, with
   seven illegal alien passengers in his vehicle. See § 2L1.1(b)(6) (increasing a
   defendant’s offense level where the “offense involved intentionally or
   recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to
   another person”).
          For the first time on appeal, Mendoza challenges the district court’s
   application of the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6). Our review is
   for plain error only. United States v. Ramirez, 37 F.4th 233, 235 (5th Cir.
   2022). To prevail on plain error review, Mendoza must demonstrate “(1) an
   error; (2) that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute;
   and (3) that affects his substantial rights.” Id. (citation omitted). If he does
   so, this court has the discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects
   the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
   (alteration adopted) (citation omitted).
          Mendoza first argues that the district court erred in adopting the
   PSR’s factual findings with respect to his flight from Border Patrol agents
   because the PSR lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. We need not address
   this argument because Mendoza stipulated to the truth of the prosecution’s
   factual basis at rearraignment. Specifically, he admitted under oath and in
   open court that he engaged in a “high-speed chase” as he “attempted to flee
   from Border Patrol . . . well exceeding the posted speed limit.” Given that
   Mendoza admitted to the very facts whose reliability in the PSR he now
   challenges, any error in the district court’s reliance on the PSR did not affect
   Mendoza’s substantial rights. See United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641,
          _____________________
   this inconsistency, and because it does not affect Mendoza’s guidelines range, we do not
   further address it here.

                                              2
Case: 22-50573        Document: 00516780714              Page: 3       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                          No. 22-50573

   649 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[S]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong
   presumption of verity.”); United States v. Ramos-Rodriguez, 136 F.3d 465,
   468-69 (5th Cir. 1998) (stating that defendant’s admissions at his plea
   colloquy are “pivotal” and “will not easily be discounted”); see also United
   States v. Avalos-Sanchez, 975 F.3d 436, 441 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting that we
   may review “the entire record” when we examine factual-basis sufficiency
   supporting a conviction under plain-error review). Given Mendoza’s own
   admission, moreover, “this is not the type of case that implicates our
   discretion because it does not call into question the fairness, integrity, or
   public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Ibanez, 532 F.
   App’x 544, 547 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
   732 (1993)).2
           Separately, Mendoza argues that the PSR’s factual findings are
   insufficient to support an enhancement under § 2L1.1(b)(6). We have
   confirmed that the application of this enhancement “requires a fact-specific
   inquiry,” United States v. Mata, 624 F.3d 170, 174 (5th Cir. 2010), and have
   found that this enhancement is proper where “traffic violations put the
   passengers at high risk of an accident,” United States v. Garcia-Solis, 927 F.3d
   308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2019). It was not clearly erroneous for the district court
   to find that Mendoza’s “high-speed chase,” “flee[ing] from Border Patrol”
   and “well exceeding the speed limit,” put his seven passengers at high risk
   of an accident.
           We AFFIRM.

           _____________________
           2
              Mendoza also argues that the PSR is inconsistent with the probable cause
   affidavit, which does not describe the chase and states only that Mendoza “exceeded” the
   speed limit. But this is no inconsistency. The probable cause affidavit simply does not
   describe the chase in detail, and as the Government persuasively suggests, this is because
   Mendoza’s indictment was for transporting illegal aliens, not fleeing authorities. This does
   not demonstrate plain error.

                                                3