Court Opinion

ID: 9893433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 00:00:29.735889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:39.520736
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10197        Document: 00516946211             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10197
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               October 26, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Sergio Diaz,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-269-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Haynes, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Sergio Diaz appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
   conviction for possession of stolen mail. He argues that the district court
   erred in calculating the loss amount attributable to him under U.S.S.G.
   § 2B1.1(b)(1) by relying on “commentary instead of the guideline text.” He

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10197       Document: 00516946211          Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/26/2023

                                     No. 23-10197

   contends that application note three is not entitled to deference in light of the
   Supreme Court’s decision in Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2414-18 (2019).
            After Diaz filed his brief, we clarified that Kisor did not expressly
   overrule or modify Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993). See United
   States v. Vargas, 74 F.4th 673 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc). Accordingly, we still
   defer to Guidelines commentary “unless it is inconsistent with, or a plainly
   erroneous reading of the guideline definition.” Id. at 680 (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). “Because Kisor did not overrule or modify
   Stinson, our pre-Kisor cases deferring to various notes in the Sentencing
   Guidelines based on Stinson are still good law.” United States v. Choulat, 75
   F.4th 489, 494 (5th Cir. 2023).            Thus, application note three is
   “authoritative” here. United States v. Dowl, 619 F.3d 494, 502 (5th Cir.
   2010).     The district court did not err in calculating the loss amount
   attributable to Diaz under § 2B1.1(b)(1) by relying on the application note to
   this section. See Dowl, 619 F.3d at 502.
            The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          2