United States v. Jose Ortiz-Chavira
873 F.3d 473
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ortiz-Chavira pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) after a prior Texas burglary-of-a-habitation conviction and deportation.
- The PSR applied a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, treating the Texas burglary as a "crime of violence."
- Ortiz-Chavira objected; the district court overruled the objection and adopted the 12-level enhancement, resulting in an offense level of 17 and a Guidelines range of 30–37 months (CH III).
- The district court sentenced Ortiz-Chavira to 30 months, stating under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that it would impose the same 30-month sentence even if the Guidelines calculation were wrong.
- Ortiz-Chavira appealed, arguing the 12-level enhancement was improperly applied; the parties agreed the district court erred in applying that enhancement.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the procedural error was harmless and affirmed, concluding the district court would have imposed the same sentence for the same reasons and was not influenced by the erroneous Guidelines calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by applying a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on the Texas burglary conviction | Ortiz-Chavira: the Texas burglary is not a "crime of violence," so the 12-level enhancement was erroneous | Government: district court properly applied the enhancement (or at least relied on it in sentencing) | Court: parties agree the enhancement application was erroneous (procedural error occurred) |
| Whether the procedural error requires reversal (harmless-error analysis) | Ortiz-Chavira: error may have influenced the sentence and thus requires vacatur | Government: error was harmless because the district court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines range | Court: error was harmless—district court expressly stated it would impose 30 months under § 3553(a) regardless of Guidelines and was not influenced by the miscalculation |
| Whether references to "the low end" indicate reliance on the incorrect Guidelines range | Ortiz-Chavira: references show the court relied on the erroneous range (citing Martinez-Romero) | Government: the judge explained the specific reasons for 30 months and said it was sufficient under § 3553(a), showing a particular sentence was intended | Court: distinguished Martinez-Romero and found the judge had a particular sentence in mind and would have imposed it notwithstanding the error |
| Standard of harmless-error review to apply | Ortiz-Chavira: contends varying harmlessness metrics may apply when alternative ranges are considered | Government: argues harmlessness can be found here | Court: applied the more demanding standard and still found error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir.) (harmless-error framework for sentencing procedural errors)
- United States v. Garcia-Figueroa, 753 F.3d 179 (5th Cir.) (not every procedural error requires reversal; harmless-error discussion)
- United States v. Castro-Alfonso, 841 F.3d 292 (5th Cir.) (requiring proponent to show district court would have imposed same sentence and was not influenced by erroneous Guidelines)
- United States v. Martinez-Romero, 817 F.3d 917 (5th Cir.) (distinguishable precedent where sentencing court expressly tied sentence to incorrect Guidelines range)