United States v. Jose Pinedo-Ureno
694 F. App'x 267
5th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Jose Antonio Pinedo-Ureno pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and received a within-Guidelines sentence of 70 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
- He challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Primary arguments: reentry is only an international trespass; U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 lacks empirical basis; § 2L1.2 double-counts prior criminal history; 16-level enhancement overpunishes and undermines respect for law; sentence failed to account for his personal history (long U.S. residence, motive to support a U.S. citizen daughter).
- He did not object to the sentence in district court, so appellate review was limited to plain-error review.
- The Fifth Circuit applied its precedent rejecting challenges to the empirical basis of § 2L1.2 and to the claim that double-counting renders a sentence unreasonable, and held that the within-Guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable.
- Court concluded Pinedo-Ureno failed to show the sentence ignored a dispositive factor, relied on an improper factor, or constituted a clear error in balancing § 3553(a) factors; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Pinedo-Ureno's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | Sentence greater than necessary; § 2L1.2 overpunishes and lacks empirical basis; double-counts priors; personal history warrants leniency | Within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; § 2L1.2 and enhancement valid; district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors | Affirmed: sentence not substantively unreasonable under plain-error review |
| Whether § 2L1.2’s empirical basis requires individualized analysis | Guideline lacks empirical support so presumption of reasonableness should be rebutted | Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses requirement of piece-by-piece empirical review | Rejected: no such requirement under circuit precedent |
| Whether § 2L1.2’s double-counting of criminal history renders sentence unreasonable | Double-counting produces unfair harsher punishment | Double-counting does not automatically make a sentence unreasonable | Rejected: circuit precedent permits § 2L1.2 application |
| Whether personal circumstances (long U.S. residence, motive to support daughter) rebut presumption of reasonableness | These warrant a below-Guidelines sentence | These facts insufficient to rebut presumption; district court considered them | Rejected: personal history did not overcome presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (discusses district court discretion to deviate from Guidelines)
- United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir.) (rejects requirement of piece-by-piece empirical review of Guidelines)
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.) (reasonableness review post-Booker)
- United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204 (5th Cir.) (illegal reentry is a serious offense)
- United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554 (5th Cir.) (personal ties to U.S. insufficient to rebut presumption)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for substantive reasonableness review)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited claims)
- United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir.) (plain-error review applied when no contemporaneous objection)
- United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390 (5th Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209 (5th Cir.) (requirements to show substantive unreasonableness)