United States v. Jose Perez-Maldonado
680 F. App'x 332
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jose Perez-Maldonado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1326) and received a within-Guidelines 41-month sentence.
- At sentencing he sought a downward variance based on pending amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, arguing the 2015 Guidelines produced a greater-than-necessary sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- He did not argue at sentencing that the district court misunderstood its authority to grant a variance; no contemporaneous objection was made to the court’s remarks or to the supervised-release term.
- The district court stated it was applying the Guidelines in effect at sentencing, considered Perez-Maldonado’s arguments and the PSR, and referenced Booker in explaining the advisory nature of the Guidelines.
- The court imposed a three-year term of supervised release despite the defendant’s deportable status; the PSR and Guideline § 5D1.1(c) (discouraging supervised release for deportable aliens) were before the court.
- Perez-Maldonado appealed, raising (1) alleged procedural error in failing to recognize authority to grant a downward variance and (2) alleged procedural error in imposing supervised release without explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by failing to recognize it could grant a downward variance based on pending § 2L1.2 amendments | Perez-Maldonado: court failed to recognize its authority to vary downward in light of pending amendments | Government: court applied the Guidelines in effect at sentencing, considered the variance request, and referenced Booker; no indication it thought it lacked authority | No error under plain-error review; court considered the request and did not clearly or obviously believe it lacked authority to vary |
| Whether imposition of supervised release for a deportable alien was procedurally erroneous for lack of explanation | Perez-Maldonado: court did not explain imposing supervised release on a deportable alien | Government: PSR and § 5D1.1(c) were before the court; the court stated sentence was appropriate under § 3553(a) | No plain error; court implicitly considered § 5D1.1 and § 3553(a) supports the supervised-release term |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard when defendant fails to preserve sentencing objection)
- United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez, 488 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2007) (district court must apply Guidelines in effect at sentencing)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standard for establishing plain and obvious error)
- United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for supervised-release objections)
- United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2013) (§ 5D1.1(c) is hortatory; supervised-release term may remain if court chooses to impose it)
- United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2013) (district court’s adoption of the PSR supports inference it considered PSR contents)
Judgment AFFIRMED.