Court Opinion

ID: 9928844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 01:00:44.306481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:37.036995
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10167     Document: 00517051901         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/31/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                ____________
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                  No. 23-10167
                                ____________                                FILED
                                                                     January 31, 2024
   United States of America,                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Eric Salvador Pena,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:21-CR-483-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Smith, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge:
          Defendant Eric Salvador Pena appeals his sentence of 63 months of
   incarceration and 3 years of supervised release. Pena argues that the district
   court (1) erred in applying an enhanced base offense level and (2) committed
   procedural error in imposing a top-of-the-guideline sentence. We disagree.
   Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
                                   Background
          Eric Salvador Pena, who struggled with a drug addiction for years, had
   a brief relapse in his sobriety in June 2021. Pena began gambling at “make-
Case: 23-10167       Document: 00517051901           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                      No. 23-10167

   shift” game rooms after losing his employment during the COVID-19
   pandemic. On a visit to The Rock gambling room, Pena met Ada Hernandez,
   a distributor of methamphetamine. Hernandez began selling illegal drugs to
   Pena.
            On June 9, 2021, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
   Explosives (“ATF”) confidential informant contacted Hernandez and
   inquired about the availability of firearms for sale. Hernandez told Pena that
   a customer wanted to purchase a firearm, and Pena informed Hernandez that
   he had a firearm for sale. Subsequently, Hernandez arranged for the ATF
   confidential informant to purchase a firearm for $450 from Pena, a convicted
   felon.
            On June 10, 2021, Pena and Hernandez met the ATF confidential
   informant The Rock gambling room. Pena sold the firearm to the ATF
   confidential informant, and the ATF confidential informant gave Hernandez
   $50 for brokering the transaction.
            Less than a month after selling the firearm, Pena resumed his sobriety.
   Pena regained employment as a plumber, became a more active father, and
   began fully complying with the conditions of his parole.
            But on October 21, 2021, during a routine visit with his supervisor
   parole officer, Pena was arrested for possession of a firearm by a convicted
   felon. Pena pled guilty on April 21, 2022. The district court accepted Pena’s
   guilty plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing for September 29, 2022.
            The Presentence Report (PSR) recommended a “20” base offense
   level because the semiautomatic firearm was “capable of accepting a large
   capacity     magazine.”    U.S.    SEN’T      GUIDELINES        MANUAL        §
   2K2.1(a)(4)(B) (U.S. SENT’G COMM’N 2023). The offense level was
   reduced to “17” in light of Pena’s acceptance of responsibility. Pena’s

                                           2
Case: 23-10167      Document: 00517051901          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                    No. 23-10167

   criminal history and offense level combined provided an advisory guideline
   range of 51 to 63 months of incarceration.
          After the PSR was submitted, Pena filed an objection contending that
   the correct total offense level was “12” with a guideline range of 30-37
   months. Pena argued that because the government did not provide sufficient
   evidence that the semiautomatic firearm he sold was “capable of accepting a
   large capacity magazine,” the “20” base offense level was unwarranted.
          Citing United States v. Luna-Gonzalez, 34 F.4th 479 (5th Cir. 2022),
   Pena construed “capable of accepting the magazine” to mean that a firearm
   must perform with a fully loaded magazine attached to it. Thus, because the
   firearm he sold did not work with the fully loaded magazine attached to it,
   Pena argued that the firearm and the magazine were not compatible.
          In an addendum to the PSR, the probation officer informed the court
   that a special agent conducted two firearms tests and that the second test
   confirmed compatibility. During the first test, the firearm’s magazine was
   filled to maximum capacity and the firearm jammed after four rounds were
   discharged. During the second test, the firearm’s magazine was loaded with
   sixteen rounds of ammunition and the firearm discharged sixteen rounds.
   The Sentencing Guidelines provide that a semiautomatic firearm accepts a
   large capacity magazine if the attached magazine “accept[s] more than 15
   rounds of ammunition.” U.S. SEN’T GUIDELINES MANUAL § 2K2.1
   cmt. n.2 (U.S. SENT’G COMM’N 2023). The probation officer concluded
   that the enhanced offense level was appropriate.
          The district court heard testimony and observed a video of the second
   firearms test. At the close of the hearing, the district court overruled Pena’s
   objection. The district court acknowledged that the video proved that “by a
   preponderance of evidence” the firearm and magazine were “capable and
   compatible of holding at least 15 bullets.” The district court sentenced Pena

                                          3
Case: 23-10167       Document: 00517051901            Page: 4     Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                       No. 23-10167

   to 63 months of incarceration with 3 years of supervised release. This appeal
   followed.
                                 Standard of Review
          A district court’s interpretation or application of the Sentencing
   Guidelines is reviewed de novo and its factual findings are reviewed for clear
   error. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008).
   Under clear error review, if the district court’s factual findings are plausible
   in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the factual findings must be
   accepted. Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State University, 984 F.3d 1107, 1116 (5th
   Cir. 2021). The Government must show “by a preponderance of the
   evidence, the facts necessary to support an elevated base offense level.”
   Luna-Gonzalez, 34 F.4th at 480. The Sentencing Guidelines provide that an
   offense level of 20 is appropriate if “the (i) offense involved a . . .
   semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine
   . . . and (ii) defendant . . . was a prohibited person at the time [of] the offense.”
   U.S. SEN’T GUIDELINES MANUAL § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) (U.S. SENT’G
   COMM’N 2023). The Sentencing Guidelines further provide that to be
   capable of accepting a large capacity magazine, a semiautomatic firearm has
   a “magazine or similar device that could accept more than 15 rounds of
   ammunition” attached to it. U.S. SEN’T GUIDELINES MANUAL § 2K2.1
   cmt. n.2 (U.S. SENT’G COMM’N 2023).
          When reviewing a criminal sentence, this court engages in two steps.
   First, we determine whether the district court committed a significant
   procedural error under harmless error review. United States v. Coto-Mendoza,
   986 F.3d 583, 586 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588,
   598 (5th Cir. 2014). Significant procedural errors are, for example, “failing
   to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range . . . failing to
   consider the 18 U.S.C § 3553(a) sentencing factors,” or “selecting a sentence

                                            4
Case: 23-10167      Document: 00517051901           Page: 5   Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                     No. 23-10167

   based on clearly erroneous facts . . .” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
   (2007). If there is a significant procedural error, then we remand unless the
   proponent of the sentence shows that the error did not affect the
   determination of the imposed sentence. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d at 586.
          If there is not a significant procedural error, we engage in the second
   step of review by considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
   imposed under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When a
   sentence is properly calculated and within-guidelines, a rebuttable
   presumption of reasonableness is applied. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d
   173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). If the sentence does not account for a factor that
   should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or
   improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing
   sentencing factors, the presumption is rebutted. Id.
                                      Analysis
          First, Mr. Pena is a convicted felon and, thus, does not argue that he
   was a prohibited person at the time of the offense. Instead, he argues that the
   semiautomatic firearm in his possession was not “capable of accepting” a
   large capacity magazine. Specifically, Pena contends that under Luna-
   Gonzalez the semiautomatic firearm failed to meet the compatibility
   requirement.
          In Luna-Gonzalez, the defendant pleaded guilty to possession of
   firearm by an illegal alien pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Luna-
   Gonzalez, 34 F.4th at 480. At the conclusion of the sentencing, he appealed
   the district court’s imposition of an elevated base offense level for possessing
   “a semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large capacity
   magazine.” Id. He argued that the government “failed to prove that (1) the
   firearm and magazine were compatible, and (2) the firearm could fire
   multiple rounds without reloading.” Id.

                                          5
Case: 23-10167      Document: 00517051901           Page: 6   Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                     No. 23-10167

          The Luna-Gonzalez panel vacated his sentence on two grounds. First,
   the panel held that the government failed to meet the compatibility
   requirement by introducing “zero evidence (let alone a preponderance)
   providing that the large-capacity magazine was compatible.” Id. While the
   panel did not provide the “many ways” the government could have met this
   burden, it did conclude that an unsworn statement alleging that the magazine
   fits the firearm was insufficient. Id. Second, the panel rejected the
   government’s proposition that the proximity of the magazine to the firearm
   suggests that it fits. Id. at 481. It reasoned that “closeness does not supplant
   compatibility; the magazine must actually fit.” Id.
          The instant case is distinguishable from Luna-Gonzalez because here
   the government did provide evidence showing that the firearm and magazine
   were compatible. During the second test, the firearm was able to load and
   shoot 16 rounds of ammunition with ease. A video recording of second
   firearm test was reviewed by the district court. The threshold for “capable of
   accepting” is more than 15 rounds of ammunition. U.S.S.G. §
   2K2.1(a)(4)(B). Pena argues, however, that because the firearm jammed with
   a fully loaded magazine attached to it during the initial test, the firearm and
   the magazine failed to meet the compatibility requirement. However, Luna-
   Gonzalez does not require that a firearm have a fully loaded magazine
   attached to it to meet the compatibility requirement. Moreover, the plain
   meaning of the statute—in addition to this Circuit’s interpretation of the
   statute—does not suggest that to be compatible with a firearm the magazine
   must be fully loaded. Thus, despite the firearm’s inability to fire at maximum
   capacity during the first test, the government met the requisite “more than
   15 rounds of ammunition” during the second test.
          It is likely that a single firearm test demonstrating compatibility meets
   the preponderance of evidence burden of proof. See Reed v. LKQ Corporation,
   436 F.Supp.3d 892, 898 (N.D. Tex. 2020) (“[P]roving a fact by a

                                          6
Case: 23-10167      Document: 00517051901          Page: 7   Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                    No. 23-10167

   preponderance of evidence means showing that the existence of a fact is more
   likely so than not.”) Regardless, this court must accept plausible factual
   findings in light of the record. Taylor-Travis, 984 F.3d at 1116. Because the
   firearm in Pena’s possession shot more than 15 rounds of ammunition with
   the magazine attached to it pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), the
   district court did not err in applying an enhanced base offense level.
          Second, Pena contends that the district court selected his sentence
   based on “erroneous facts that [he] was a drug dealer who traffics in guns, is
   a gang member, and does not know how to be a man.” First, Pena argues that
   there was no evidence of his being a drug dealer in the record. However, in
   the next sentence, Pena references the “PSR summary of an arrest in 2007
   and an arrest in 2011” for dealing drugs. Second, there is evidence that Pena,
   at the very least, was affiliated with a gang. Pena told gang detectives he was
   a member of Tango Blast in 2011, and the ATF confidential informant who
   Pena sold the gun to believes that Pena knew Hernandez because Hernandez
   was a member of a female gang affiliated with Tango Blast. Furthermore,
   Pena concedes that he became affiliated with Tango Blast while in custody in
   2014. To his credit, Pena maintains that since his release in 2014 he has not
   been involved in any street gang. However, the district court was not inclined
   to believe him given the evidence to the contrary, which was well within the
   district court’s prerogative. Third, the district court only referenced Pena’s
   manhood in response to Pena’s statement that Pena “didn’t know how to be
   a man.” Therefore, viewing “these challenged remarks in their overall
   context,” the district court did not base is top-of-the-guideline sentence on
   clearly erroneous facts and, thus, there was no significant procedural error.
   United States v. Cortez-Rocha, 644 F. App’x 296, 297 (5th Cir. 2016).
          Additionally, the district court did not commit error for failing to
   consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Pena contends that his
   presentation to the district court about why § 3553(a) failed to support a

                                          7
Case: 23-10167      Document: 00517051901           Page: 8   Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                     No. 23-10167

   sentence of 63 months of incarceration was completely neglected. He further
   claims that the district court’s silence on these factors indicates improper
   consideration or clear error. However, in providing justifications for a
   sentence, the district court does not have to engage in “robotic incantations
   that each statutory factor has been considered.” United States v. Smith, 440
   F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006)(quoting United States v. Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d
   750, 756 (8th Cir. 2005)). Furthermore, the district court did explain that its
   imposed sentence “reflects the seriousness of the crime, promotes respect
   for the law, provides just punishments for the offense, and affords adequate
   deterrence to criminal conduct.” While Pena disagrees with the district
   court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, this alone is not sufficient for
   reversal. United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016).
          Last, Pena argues that his sentence of 63 months is substantively
   unreasonable because of the erroneous facts the district court relied on to
   determine his sentence. Additionally, Pena contends that the district court
   gave great weight to his criminal history and ignored his years of being a law-
   abiding citizen. ECF 18, 57-58.
          As stated before, Pena has not shown how the facts that are supported
   by the record—years of drug dealing and gang participation—are erroneous.
   Second, the district court did note his criminal history when weighing the §
   3553(a) factors. However, the district court had the discretion to weigh his
   criminal history. Because Pena was on parole at the time he committed the
   instant offense, the district court considered it appropriate to sentence him
   to 63 months. See § 3553(a)(2)(A), (B), (C). Furthermore, “[Pena’s]
   disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed does not suffice to
   rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines
   sentence.” See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
   Therefore, Pena failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness and failed

                                          8
Case: 23-10167    Document: 00517051901          Page: 9   Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                  No. 23-10167

   to show how the district court abused its discretion and imposed a
   substantively unreasonable sentence.
                                  Conclusion
          For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment
   imposing a 63-month sentence of incarceration and 3 years of supervised
   release.

                                          9