United States v. Florencio Rosales-Mireles
850 F.3d 246
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Florencio Rosales-Mireles pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).
- Presentence report double-counted a single 2009 Texas misdemeanor assault conviction, adding four criminal-history points rather than two.
- Report calculated a CH score of 13, Criminal-History Category VI, and a Guidelines range of 77–96 months (offense level 21).
- Defense did not object to the double-counting at sentencing but requested a downward departure to 41 months; the court denied the departure and sentenced him to 78 months.
- On appeal Rosales-Mireles raised (1) that the prior conviction was double-counted and (2) that the 78-month within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior conviction was double-counted under the Guidelines | The 2009 misdemeanor assault was counted twice, inflating CH points | Government conceded double-counting was error | Court: Error was plain — Guidelines require 2 points per prior sentence, not 4 |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights (prejudice) under plain-error review | But for the error, Guidelines range would be 70–87 months; reasonable probability of a different outcome | Government: Judge said he "would not have sentenced less than 78 months" so no prejudice | Court: Defendant met burden — judge’s remark did not unequivocally show he would impose same sentence regardless of range |
| Whether appellate court should correct the error (fourth prong of plain-error) | Correction warranted because Guidelines misapplied | Government: Even corrected range overlaps sentenced term; no need to remedy | Court: Declined to correct — imposed 78 months lies within correct 70–87 month range; error did not warrant reversal |
| Whether the within-Guidelines 78-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Sentence overemphasized old convictions; greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Government: Sentence within Guidelines; court considered § 3553(a) factors and defendant’s history | Court: Presumed reasonable; defendant failed to rebut presumption; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error framework for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (an incorrect Guidelines range can show a reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court’s sentencing determinations entitled to deference when considering § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (examples of when appellate court exercises discretion to correct sentencing errors)
- United States v. Espinoza, 677 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain error when Guidelines misapplied was clear from Guidelines’ language)