Court Opinion

ID: 9399913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 18:00:49.793032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.861215
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50832         Document: 00516775998             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/06/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50832
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     June 6, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Anthony Gutierrez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:21-CR-49-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Anthony Gutierrez appeals the 360-month sentence imposed
   following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
   500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Gutierrez contends that the
   district court erred by relying on evidence to enhance his sentence that was
   never disclosed to the defense, that his criminal history score was incorrectly

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50832      Document: 00516775998          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                    No. 22-50832

   calculated, and that the district court incorrectly applied an enhancement for
   imported methamphetamine. We affirm.
                                         I.
          For preserved issues, this court “review[s] the district court’s
   interpretation or application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its
   factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 356
   (5th Cir. 2007). Unpreserved issues are reviewed for plain error. Puckett v.
   United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).        To demonstrate plain error,
   Gutierrez must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his
   substantial rights. See id. To establish that a sentencing error affected
   substantial rights, Gutierrez must show “a reasonable probability that, but
   for the district court’s misapplication of the Guidelines, he would have
   received a lesser sentence.” United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 821 F.3d
   659, 663-64 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          A district court may adopt the facts in a presentence report (PSR)
   without additional inquiry “if those facts have an adequate evidentiary basis
   with sufficient indicia of reliability and the defendant does not present
   rebuttal evidence or otherwise demonstrate that the information in the PSR
   is unreliable.” Trujillo, 502 F.3d at 357 (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Nevertheless, the sentencing court must afford defense counsel an
   opportunity to comment on the information considered when determining
   “an appropriate sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(C). Likewise,
   U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 provides that “[w]hen any factor important to the
   sentencing determination is reasonably in dispute, the parties shall be given
   an adequate opportunity to present information to the court regarding that
   factor.” “The touchstone of Rule 32 is reasonable notice to allow counsel
   adequately to prepare a meaningful response and engage in adversary testing

                                              2
Case: 22-50832      Document: 00516775998           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                     No. 22-50832

   at sentencing.” United States v. Stanford, 823 F.3d 814, 847 (5th Cir. 2016)
   (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted).
                                         II.
          The district court did not err by applying the enhancement under
   U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon based on the
   PSR’s recitation of a transcript of a telephone call intercepted by the
   Government during the investigation. See United States v. Fields, 932 F.3d
   316, 320 (5th Cir. 2019). When Gutierrez objected to the district court’s
   reliance on the call intercept at sentencing, the district court appropriately
   offered to continue the hearing to afford Gutierrez an opportunity to review
   the intercept and provide a response. See Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S.
   708, 715–16 (2008). But Gutierrez declined, thereby waiving his right to
   complain on appeal about the lack of opportunity to address the evidence.
   See Stanford, 823 F.3d at 847; see also United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442 F.3d
   382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, Gutierrez did not offer any evidence
   rebutting the call transcript in the PSR, which established that Gutierrez
   received a firearm as partial payment for methamphetamine. See Trujillo, 502
   F.3d at 357.
          Gutierrez did not object to his criminal history score in the district
   court, so we review the issue for plain error. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. He fails
   to show that the error in assessing two criminal history points for a prior
   sentence that was imposed more than 10 years ago affected his substantial
   rights. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2); Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. A lower
   criminal history category of V combined with Gutierrez’s offense level of 39
   produces the same guidelines imprisonment range of 360 months to life. See
   U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (sentencing table). Thus, he cannot demonstrate that,
   but for the error, he would have received a lesser sentence. See Martinez-
   Rodriguez, 821 F.3d at 663–64.

                                               3
Case: 22-50832     Document: 00516775998           Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                    No. 22-50832

          Finally, Gutierrez challenges the application of the importation
   enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) because there was no evidence
   establishing that he knew the methamphetamine was imported. As Gutierrez
   concedes, this argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v.
   Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2012).
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                             4