United States v. Aureliano Villarreal-Garcia
685 F. App'x 297
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Aureliano Villarreal-Garcia, a noncitizen, was convicted of illegal reentry and had his supervised release revoked; the district court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 36 months.
- At sentencing, the probation officer and the court stated the sentences must run consecutively, relying on an older Fifth Circuit decision later abrogated.
- On appeal (for the first time), Villarreal-Garcia argued the district court erred in believing it lacked authority to impose concurrent sentences.
- Villarreal-Garcia also challenged the assignment of three criminal-history points for a 2007 illegal reentry conviction (he argued it should have been two points).
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed both arguments for plain error and found (1) the court erred in thinking consecutive sentences were mandatory, and (2) the criminal-history calculation overstated his guideline range.
- Despite these errors affecting his substantial rights (potentially lowering the sentence by 15 months), the Fifth Circuit declined to correct the error because a 36-month total sentence was reasonable given the defendant’s recidivism and Sentencing Commission’s recommendation favoring consecutive terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in concluding it lacked authority to impose concurrent sentences | Villarreal-Garcia: court wrongly believed sentences had to be consecutive; that error is plain | Government: consecutive sentence permissible and supported by Sentencing Commission guidance and facts | Court: Clear error to say consecutive sentences were mandatory; error affected substantial rights but appellate court declined to correct it under Olano discretion (affirmed sentence) |
| Whether the three criminal-history points for the 2007 reentry were wrongly assigned | Villarreal-Garcia: 12-month-and-one-day 2007 sentence should yield two points, not three | Government: conceded error in point calculation | Court: Error was clear and affected guideline range (raised range from 21–27 to 24–30 months); counts toward substantial-rights showing |
| Whether the combined guideline calculation affected substantial rights under Molina‑Martinez | Villarreal-Garcia: cumulative miscalculation could have reduced sentence by 15 months | Government: sentence within reasonable bounds given history and policy favoring consecutive terms | Court: Errors affected substantial rights (per Molina‑Martinez) but did not seriously affect fairness, integrity, or public reputation—declined to remedy |
| Whether appellate court should exercise discretion to correct plain error under Olano | Villarreal-Garcia: asks remand or resentencing to allow concurrent sentence or lower total | Government: urges affirmation based on recidivism and Commission recommendation | Court: Exercised discretion to affirm; 36 months justified by recidivism and Commission commentary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review standard in this circuit)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standard for plain-error review)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (discretion to correct forfeited error only if it seriously affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (guidance on when guideline errors affect substantial rights)
- United States v. Huff, 370 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2004) (discussing concurrent vs consecutive sentences; earlier framing abrogated)
- United States v. Avalos‑Martinez, 700 F.3d 148 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain‑error review for criminal‑history calculation challenges)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (context for Olano’s fairness/integrity standard)