957 F.3d 514
5th Cir.2020Background
- Defendant Jesus Rodriguez-Peña pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 after being removed multiple times; encountered by CBP on May 5, 2018.
- PSR assigned offense level 17 and criminal-history category III, yielding an advisory range of 30–37 months (after a 1-point reduction); PSR applied an 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(B).
- The § 2L1.2 enhancement was erroneous: the sexual-offense conduct predated Rodriguez-Peña’s first removal, so the enhancement did not apply.
- At sentencing the judge said the 41-month prior sentence had not deterred Rodriguez-Peña and elevated the criminal-history category to IV, then imposed a 44-month sentence; defendant did not object at sentencing.
- On appeal the Government conceded the Guidelines calculation error and its plainness; the narrow dispute was whether the error was prejudicial and whether remand for resentencing (as opposed to a limited remand) was required.
- The Fifth Circuit held the plain-error prongs were satisfied on these facts, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing (while noting the district court remains free to impose any sentence permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3553).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court plainly erred in calculating the Guidelines (misapplied § 2L1.2 enhancement) | PSR misapplied § 2L1.2; error was plain and affected substantial rights, warranting relief | Government conceded calculation error and plainness but argued the error was not prejudicial and thus did not require vacatur | Court found error plain and that prongs 3 and 4 were met on these facts, vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether a limited remand (district judge states whether he would have imposed the same sentence) could be used instead of full resentencing | Defendant sought relief (vacatur/resentencing) based on prejudice from incorrect Guidelines | Government opposed a limited remand and argued prejudice was not shown; declined the limited-remand option | Court declined a limited remand (because Government rejected it) and ordered full remand; concurrence endorsed limited remand as a useful tool in appropriate cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez-Hernandez v. United States, 931 F.3d 408 (5th Cir.) (plain-error standard and sentencing-decision context)
- del Carpio Frescas v. United States, 932 F.3d 324 (5th Cir.) (routine treatment of Guidelines miscalculations in plain-error review)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (Sup. Ct.) (when Guidelines error affects substantial rights, remand usually warranted)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct.) (appellate discretion and endorsement of limited remands to resolve prejudice)
- Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (Sup. Ct.) (Guidelines range as explanatory basis for sentence)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for Rule 52(b) plain-error discretion)
- Paladino v. News-Press & Gazette Co., 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.) (limited-remand practice post-Booker to resolve sentencing counterfactuals)
- Gomez v. United States, 905 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.) (Fifth Circuit use of limited remand to resolve whether district court would modify sentence)