Court Opinion

ID: 9865986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:00:33.723396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:40.862631
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60009         Document: 00516907825             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/25/2023

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

                                      ____________                                FILED
                                                                         September 25, 2023
                                       No. 23-60009                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Abel Michua-Tototzin,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 1:22-CR-79-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Abel Michua-Tototzin contests his jury-trial conviction and sentence
   for: conspiracy to unlawfully bring an alien to, or transport an alien within,
   the United States; unlawful transportation of an alien within the United
   States; and illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
   §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(i), (ii), (v)(I), and 1326(a).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60009         Document: 00516907825         Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/25/2023

                                      No. 23-60009

          Michua presents two issues each, regarding his conviction and
   sentence. For the former, he maintains the court erred by denying his
   challenge pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and admitting
   audio recordings and their translations; for the latter, it erred by calculating
   the Guidelines range, and imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.
   Each issue fails.
          Regarding the Batson challenge, the “trial court’s decision on the
   ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact of the
   sort accorded great deference on appeal”; our court reviews for clear error.
   Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364 (1991) (discussing Batson, 476 U.S.
   at 98 n.21); United States v. Williamson, 533 F.3d 269, 274 (5th Cir. 2008)
   (discussing standard of review).
          The record supports the Government’s proffered reasons for striking
   an Hispanic member of the venire; in short, Michua fails to show they were
   pretextual for purposeful discrimination. E.g., United States v. Thompson, 735
   F.3d 291, 296–99 (5th Cir. 2013) (denying contention Government’s
   justification was pretextual); Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 278 (2015) (“It is
   understandable for a prosecutor to strike a potential juror who might have
   difficulty understanding English.” (citation omitted)); Miller-El v. Dretke,
   545 U.S. 231, 241 (2008) (discussing side-by-side comparisons). There was
   no clear error. See Thompson, 735 F.3d at 296.
          Concerning the admission of the audio recordings and their
   translations, Michua asserts the Government failed to establish they were
   admissible under the co-conspirator hearsay exception. See Fed. R. Evid.
   801(d)(2)(E).       Preserved evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of
   discretion, subject to a harmless-error analysis. E.g., United States v. Sanjar,
   876 F.3d 725, 738 (5th Cir. 2017). Michua arguably did not raise the co-
   conspirator issue in district court. If so, review would be only for plain error.

                                           2
Case: 23-60009      Document: 00516907825           Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/25/2023

                                     No. 23-60009

   E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). We need
   not decide whether the issue was preserved; it fails under either standard of
   review.
          The record supports the court’s concluding the Government met its
   burden to establish the admissibility of the recordings and translations by a
   preponderance of the evidence. E.g., United States v. Nelson, 732 F.3d 504,
   516 (5th Cir. 2013) (discussing requirements for co-conspirator exception);
   United States v. Jones, 873 F.3d 482, 496 (5th Cir. 2017) (“But his statements
   during these calls were admissions of a party opponent . . . , and the other call
   participants’ statements were admissible to provide context.”); United States
   v. Chon, 713 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2013) (discussing conspiracy
   requirements). There was no abuse of discretion.
          Next addressed are Michua’s two sentencing issues. The court
   calculated Michua’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to be 37 to 46-
   months’ imprisonment but varied above that range and sentenced him, inter
   alia, to 54 months of imprisonment.
          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).
          For his first of he two sentencing issues, Michua contends the court
   erred procedurally by failing to reduce his offense level according to

                                           3
Case: 23-60009      Document: 00516907825         Page: 4    Date Filed: 09/25/2023

                                   No. 23-60009

   Guideline § 2L1.1(b)(1)(A), which applies if “the offense was committed
   other than for profit”.
          Even assuming there is no direct evidence he profited personally,
   there is evidence his conspiracy offense was committed for profit. See
   Guideline §§ 2L1.1(b)(1), 1B1.3. Therefore, the denial of the reduction was
   not erroneous. See United States v. Odom, 694 F.3d 544, 546–47 (5th Cir.
   2012); United States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014) (noting our
   court may affirm on any basis supported by the record). Additionally, to the
   extent they are challenged, the court did not err by imposing the other
   offense-level enhancements. See Odom, 694 F.3d at 546–47.
          For the last of the two sentencing issues—the substantive
   reasonableness of the above-Guidelines sentence—and as discussed supra,
   review is for abuse of discretion. Michua’s contentions fail to show the court
   did not consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
   significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or clearly erred in
   balancing the factors. E.g., United States v. Burney, 992 F.3d 398, 400 (5th
   Cir. 2021).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         4