United States v. Espinoza
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7722
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Espinoza pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) after pawning four stolen firearms with his wife; three were pawned at Cash America Pawn in Austin for $525.
- A PSR calculated a total offense level of 15, added five criminal history points for three prior offenses and two more for the instant offense on probation, yielding a Guideline range of 30–37 months and restitution of $525 to Cash America.
- The district court adopted the PSR, sentenced Espinoza to 30 months, and ordered restitution of $525 to Cash America.
- The VWPA/MVRA framework governs whether restitution to Cash America could be imposed, and the court must determine if Cash America was a victim as defined by statute.
- The court held that Espinoza’s offense did not include theft or transfer of stolen firearms, thus restitution could not be tied to those conduct elements; Cash America was not a victim under VWPA/MVRA.
- Because restitution was improperly ordered and affected the balance of the sentence, the court vacated the entire sentence and remanded for resentencing; it also addressed plain-error in the criminal-history calculation related to counting two 2006 Texas convictions separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution to Cash America was authorized | Espinoza argues Cash America is not a VWPA/MVRA victim for possession-only offense. | The government contends restitution can flow from the scheme or directly from the offense. | Restitution to Cash America was improper; entire sentence vacated and remanded. |
| Whether the two 2006 Texas convictions were improperly counted as separate sentences | Espinoza contends the guidelines require treating them as a single sentence when on the same day with no intervening arrest. | The government argues they were properly counted separately due to timing and relatedness. | The district court plainly erred in counting them separately; however, the entire sentence is vacated, so impact on sentence is not addressed here. |
| Whether the error in criminal-history calculation affected Espinoza's substantial rights | Espinoza asserts potential substantial-rights impact from miscalculation. | The government did not provide a separate contrary position here beyond the plain-error argument. | Because the entire sentence is vacated, the impact on substantial rights is not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990) (restitution limited to losses directly caused by the offense)
- Mancillas, 172 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1999) (restitution for conduct underlying a different offense is improper)
- Hayes, 32 F.3d 171 (5th Cir. 1994) (restitution cannot cover losses not caused by the offense of conviction)
- United States v. Arledge, 553 F.3d 881 (5th Cir. 2008) (restitution decisions and recalculation after errors in VWPA/MVRA contexts)
- United States v. Maturin, 488 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2007) (MVRA restitution limited to conduct underlying the offense of conviction)