United States v. Galvez
20-20449
5th Cir.Nov 5, 2021Background
- Vicente Galvez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after a prior removal that followed a felony conviction.
- Sentencing Guidelines range was 8–14 months imprisonment; the district court imposed a 60‑month sentence and three years supervised release after an upward variance.
- The Government sought to enforce an appeal waiver in Galvez’s plea agreement; the Fifth Circuit pretermitted the waiver issue and reached the merits.
- Galvez argued procedural error: the district court relied on erroneous assumptions (alleged fast‑track reduction, possible but uncharged reentry convictions, and an alleged mail‑theft in a state case).
- Galvez also argued substantive unreasonableness: the court gave improper weight to the leniency of prior sentences and imposed an excessive upward variance.
- The district court emphasized Galvez’s extensive use of aliases, multiple fraudulent IDs, and the temporal remoteness of most prior convictions; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of plea‑waiver | U.S.: waiver bars appeal of sentence | Galvez: waiver was unknowingly/involuntarily made and breached by Government | Court pretermitted waiver and decided merits for efficiency |
| Procedural reasonableness (reliance on factual assumptions) | U.S.: district court acted within discretion; assumptions either correct or immaterial | Galvez: court relied on erroneous/material facts (fast‑track, possible arrests, mail theft) | No procedural error — defendant failed to show reliance on erroneous or material information |
| Substantive reasonableness (improper factor) | U.S.: district court did not rely on improper factors; sentenced on current count | Galvez: court punished him for leniency of prior sentences | No plain error — court expressly disclaimed reliance on improper factors and limited sentencing to current offense |
| Substantive reasonableness (extent of variance) | U.S.: §3553(a) factors and defendant’s aliases/fraud justified variance | Galvez: 60 months (46 months above Guidelines) is greater than necessary | Affirmed — variance not substantively unreasonable; Fifth Circuit defers to district court and cites precedent upholding larger variances |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2006) (permitting a court to pretermit waiver questions and reach merits)
- United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard: abuse of discretion for sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Gentry, 941 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 2019) (due process bars sentences based on erroneous/material information)
- United States v. Evans, 941 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1991) (defendant bears burden to show court relied on erroneous or materially untrue information)
- United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (framework for assessing non‑Guidelines sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain‑error review when particular objection not raised below)
- Holguin‑Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020) (preservation and standard for appellate review of sentencing objections)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error framework)
- United States v. Rodriguez‑Rodriguez, 775 F.3d 706 (5th Cir. 2015) (application of plain‑error and sentencing standards)
- United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2010) (upholding substantial upward variance)
- United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2006) (upholding large upward variance)
- United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding large upward variance)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference to district court’s §3553(a) balancing)
- United States v. Hoffman, 901 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2018) (discussing deference to district court’s sentencing judgment)