977 F.3d 354
5th Cir.2020Background
- Surveillance footage and bank records showed Alonso Ochoa cashing stolen checks using a DBA he had registered (Zoetis) and his own ID; he pleaded guilty to one count of stolen mail under 18 U.S.C. § 1708.
- Ochoa's PSR noted pending state charges (including an Ellis County charge) but no court information for the Ellis matter.
- Defense asked the district court to order the federal sentence to run concurrently with any related state sentences under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c); the Government deferred to Probation’s determination and was not opposed to concurrency for related charges.
- The district court, finding no evidence the state charge was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme, declined to order concurrency and imposed a within-Guidelines 27-month federal sentence without specifying concurrency.
- The Fifth Circuit presumes federal sentences run consecutively when concurrency is not specified (United States v. Candia) and affirmed the district court: Ochoa did not prove the state charge was “relevant conduct” to trigger § 5G1.3(c), and he failed to rebut the presumption that a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by not ordering the federal sentence to run concurrently under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) | The court did not abuse discretion; Ochoa failed to show the pending state charge was relevant conduct to the federal offense, so § 5G1.3(c) did not apply | Ochoa argued pending state charges were "relevant conduct" and that his federal sentence must run concurrently with any resulting state sentence under § 5G1.3(c) | Affirmed. § 5G1.3(c) requires an anticipated state sentence based on conduct "relevant" (same course of conduct/common scheme); Ochoa presented no evidence tying the state charge to his federal offense. |
| Whether Ochoa’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable | The within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and Ochoa did not rebut that presumption by addressing § 3553(a) factors or offering evidence | Ochoa contended the lack of concurrency could substantially increase his total imprisonment and harm his substantial rights | Affirmed. Ochoa failed to challenge the § 3553(a) analysis, supply evidence to rebut the PSR, or show clear error in balancing sentencing factors; mere speculation about state sentencing effects is insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2006) (absent a specification, a district court’s failure to order concurrence is presumed to permit consecutive service)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines advisory; courts must consult and consider them)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (review of sentencing for abuse of discretion; reasonableness standard)
- Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018) (district courts must consult and take the Guidelines into account)
- United States v. Horton, 950 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2020) (mere temporal connection insufficient to establish relevant-conduct relationship)
- United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2012) (reasonableness review measured against § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1995) (district court may adopt PSR findings absent rebuttal evidence)