United States v. Damien Castillo-Murion
714 F. App'x 343
5th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Damien Castillo-Murion pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- Sentencing Guidelines range was 21–27 months; district court imposed a 50‑month sentence (23‑month upward variance).
- District court relied on Castillo‑Murion’s extensive criminal history and needs for deterrence and public protection to justify the upward variance.
- Castillo‑Murion challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable and the size of the variance as excessive.
- He also argued (1) 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague so prior convictions could not be counted as aggravated felonies under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), and (2) his sentence violated due process because the indictment did not allege prior convictions that would trigger a § 1326(b) enhancement.
- The Fifth Circuit found none of these arguments persuasive and affirmed the district court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of 50‑month sentence (upward variance) | Sentence overemphasized criminal history, failed to properly balance § 3553(a) factors, and variance extent was excessive | District court made individualized § 3553(a) assessment; criminal history, deterrence, and protection justified variance | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered arguments and reasonably balanced § 3553(a) factors |
| Legality of treating prior convictions as aggravated felonies under § 16(b) (vagueness) | § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague; prior convictions shouldn’t count as crimes of violence for U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 | Claim is factually inapplicable here (no aggravated‑felony treatment) and foreclosed by precedent | Rejected — claim is factually baseless and foreclosed by precedent |
| Due process challenge to sentence exceeding 2 years absent indictment alleging prior convictions (Almendarez‑Torres point) | Sentence cannot exceed two years under § 1326(a) because indictment lacked allegation of prior convictions triggering § 1326(b) enhancement | Almendarez‑Torres permits sentencing enhancement based on prior convictions without their being alleged in the indictment | Rejected — issue foreclosed by Almendarez‑Torres; affirmation |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (review of sentencing reasonableness; abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (guidance on sentencing factor weighting and substantive‑reasonableness review)
- United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2006) (upholding substantial upward variance)
- United States v. Gonzalez‑Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding precedent on § 16(b) vagueness issue)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior‑conviction sentencing enhancement permissible without allegation in indictment)