United States v. Arturo Cancino-Trinidad
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4802
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Cancino-Trinidad, an illegal alien, pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry after deportation.
- He has a long history of arrests and convictions, including an aggravated felony (uttering a forged instrument) and near-continuous U.S. contact since 1986.
- At sentencing (Dec 6, 2011), the district court imposed 32 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, and a $100 assessment (remitted).
- The PSR, adopted without change, stated the SR range was 2–3 years; § 5D1.1 was amended effective Nov 1, 2011 to reflect that SR is discretionary for deportable aliens not required by statute and likely to be deported.
- The government noted a new SR range of 1–3 years, but the PSR was not updated; the district court and government were unaware of the amended guideline.
- Cancino-Trinidad timely appealed, challenging the three-year SR as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plain-error review applies to SR under § 5D1.1(c). | Cancino-Trinidad argues misapplication of the amended guideline affected SR. | The government contends no departure; SR within amended range may be reviewed for plain error only. | Plain-error review applies and the error did not affect substantial rights. |
| Did the district court commit procedural error in applying the outdated Guidelines | Court relied on PSR reflecting pre-amendment range and treated SR as mandatory. | Court implicitly considered deterrence and protection; error did not alter result. | Yes, there was procedural error by adopting outdated guidelines, but not reversible on plain-error review. |
| Whether the SR sentence constitutes an upward departure under § 5D1.1(c). | Argues the court used an erroneous view of mandatory SR to impose three years. | Dominguez-Alvarado forecloses departure analysis when SR falls within amended range. | Not a departure; within-range sentence analyzed for reasonableness. |
| Whether the three-year SR is procedurally reasonable given § 5D1.1(c). | Court did not adequately reflect added deterrence considerations under amended guidance. | Existing record shows deterrence/protection considerations; error not outcome-determinative. | Procedural reasoning adequate despite not updating PSR; error did not affect outcome. |
| Whether the SR sentence is substantively reasonable. | Three-year SR may be unreasonable given amended guidance discouraging SR for deportable aliens. | Within-guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; defendant’s extensive criminal history supports deterrence. | Not substantively unreasonable; within-range sentence entitled to presumption of reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural review of sentencing; consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2012) (SR under § 5D1.1(c) should be considered for added deterrence in deportable aliens)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error review framework for sentencing)
- United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (four-factor test for plain error; standard for corrective action)
- United States v. Blocker, 612 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review requires showing error affected substantial rights)