United States v. Abraham Hernandez-Zavala
689 F. App'x 268
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Hernandez-Zavala pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; the plea colloquy initially misstated his most recent deportation date and was later corrected twice by the Government (to July 28, 2014, then to May 28, 2015). He confirmed July 28, 2014 at the plea hearing.
- The PSR listed multiple prior removals and applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on prior drug‑trafficking convictions, producing an offense level of 21 and criminal history category VI; but it noted a 2‑year statutory cap would apply if the Government’s deportation date at plea was held controlling.
- The Government contended the correct deportation date was May 28, 2015 (after his aggravated-felony convictions), making a 20‑year statutory maximum under § 1326(b) applicable; it proffered an I‑205 warrant signed by Hernandez‑Zavala.
- At sentencing the district court gave Hernandez‑Zavala the choice to withdraw his plea or proceed; he proceeded but contested relying on corrected dates; he acknowledged his signature on the I‑205 during the hearing.
- The district court applied the 20‑year statutory maximum, adopted the PSR’s guideline calculations (including the § 2L1.2 enhancement and criminal history points), sentenced him to 83 months, and Hernandez‑Zavala appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Hernandez‑Zavala's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying § 1326(b) 20‑year cap violated Apprendi because deportation date/facts increasing max were not admitted or tried | Court erred because the Government relied on a corrected deportation date not admitted at plea or found by a jury | Defendant admitted a deportation date at plea (July 28, 2014) and record (I‑205) supports a post‑conviction removal; any Apprendi error is harmless | Harmless error; admitted date and I‑205 support 20‑year maximum, so outcome unaffected |
| Whether Government committed fraud on the court by moving to amend plea colloquy without defendant’s agreement | Government mischaracterized defendant’s agreement to amend plea colloquy | Government corrected clerical/date error; defendant acknowledged the factual error and opposed only the motion’s procedure | No plain error; not fraud on the court |
| Whether district judge’s conduct violated due process/equal protection or warranted recusal | Judge’s comments/rulings showed bias and violated rights | No supporting legal authority or developed argument; no record showing bias | Claims rejected for lack of legal support; no recusal warranted |
| Whether sentencing enhancements and criminal history points were improper (including challenges to prior convictions, counsel waiver, and PSR reliability) | Prior convictions shouldn’t count due to Johnson, lack of counsel, missing/amended judgments, or inaudible state record | Enhancements based on drug‑trafficking offense (not aggravated‑felony for Johnson), Oregon law presumes regularity of judgments, PSR and supplied amended judgment suffice | No plain error; enhancements and criminal history calculations upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (statutory‑maximum facts must be admitted or jury‑found except prior convictions)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (prior conviction may be a sentencing factor)
- United States v. Rojas‑Luna, 522 F.3d 502 (5th Cir.) (deportation date must be proved or admitted for § 1326(b) enhancement)
- United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir.) (de novo review for statutory‑maximum/Apprendi objections)
- United States v. Mejia‑Huerta, 480 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.) (harmless‑error standard for sentencing errors)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (prior convictions obtained in violation of right to counsel may be collaterally attacked for sentencing)
- United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587 (5th Cir.) (PSR reliability and district court may rely on PSR absent rebuttal)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (definition of violent felony under ACCA; relied on by defendant but held inapplicable here)