United States v. Angel Segura
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5959
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Angel Segura pleaded guilty in 2012 to failure to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- Segura’s PSR documented a long criminal history (beginning 1986), including prior contact-sex-offense convictions and multiple prior failures to register.
- Probation calculated a Guidelines offense level of 13, Criminal History IV, yielding 33–41 months imprisonment and recommended supervised release of five years to life based on treating failure to register as a “sex offense” under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2).
- The district court adopted the PSR, imposed an upward variance to 120 months’ imprisonment, and imposed life supervised release.
- On appeal Segura challenged (1) substantive reasonableness of the 120‑month upward variance and (2) the life supervised‑release term as premised on an erroneous classification of failure to register as a “sex offense.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Substantive reasonableness of 120‑month sentence | (Gov) Sentence is reasonable given § 3553(a) factors and Segura’s extensive criminal history | Segura: district court overweighed old contact offenses and prior failures to register; finding he’s a present danger is unsupported | Affirmed—district court sufficiently explained § 3553(a) balancing; no plain error (defendant failed to preserve specific objections) |
| 2) Whether failure to register is a “sex offense” under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2) for supervised‑release recommendation | (Gov) Initially conceded error on this issue on appeal | Segura: Guidelines definition requires offense perpetrated against a minor, so failure to register cannot be a sex offense | Court holds failure to register is not a “sex offense” for § 5D1.2(b)(2); but any error was not plain and did not affect substantial rights, so supervised‑release life term is not reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (preservation and plain‑error standards for sentencing objections)
- United States v. Escalante‑Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (framework for plain‑error review)
- United States v. Tang, 718 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2013) (earlier panel’s passing statement that failure to register "qualifies as a sex offense" treated as dictum here)
- United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (concluding failure to register is not a sex offense for Guidelines supervised‑release calculus)