United States v. Ernesto Becerril-Pena
714 F.3d 347
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Becerril-Peña pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after a prior deportation.
- District court sentenced him to 78 months in prison and a two-year term of supervised release.
- Becerril objected to the imposition of supervised release under amended § 5D1.1(c) and sought a downward variance based on factors including cultural assimilation.
- The district court adopted the PSR, denied the § 5D1.1 objection, and held it could impose supervised release without explicit extraordinary findings.
- The court stated the sentence adequately addressed the § 3553(a) factors and imposed various conditions of supervised release.
- The panel reviews the supervised-release ruling and the downward-variance objection de novo and affirms, noting substantial criminal history supports supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5D1.1(c) allows supervised release in deportable defendants without extraordinary findings | Becerril argues amendments prohibit unless extraordinary | Court may impose if properly reasoned under § 3553(a) | Affirmed; district court properly imposed supervised release |
| Whether the district court adequately addressed Becerril's downward-variance arguments | District court failed to explicitly address arguments for a shorter sentence | Court considered arguments and explained reasoning within § 3553(a) framework | Affirmed; record shows consideration and a reasoned basis for the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2012) (upholds district court's consideration under § 5D1.1(c) and § 3553(a))
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (requires meaningful consideration and explanation by judge)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (deference to district court's sentencing decisions)
- Sanchez, 667 F.3d 555 (5th Cir. 2012) (district court's adequate reasoning despite sparse explanation)
- Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (within-Guidelines sentence deferential review; consider § 3553(a) factors)
- Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2008) (review of within-Guidelines sentence considering full record)