405 F. App'x 833
5th Cir.2010Background
- Villarreal appeals his convictions for attempted carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence under § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), with consecutive sentences totaling 271 months.
- He did not object to competency or seek withdrawal of guilty pleas; the court did not hold a competency hearing when mental retardation was diagnosed later.
- The district court adopted the PSR, including an obstruction of justice adjustment to the attempted carjacking offense level.
- The PSR implied lack of acceptance of responsibility due to the obstruction adjustment, affecting the guidance under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
- The Government moved for acceptance of responsibility; Villarreal challenges whether the plea bargain was violated and whether his convictions/ sentences violate Double Jeopardy.
- The panel affirms Villarreal’s convictions and sentences; no premature certiorari relief is granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency/plea withdrawal | Villarreal argues incompetency; seeks withdrawal or a competency hearing. | District court failed to address potential incompetence after retardation diagnosis. | No plain error; pleas knowing and voluntary; no evident incompetence. |
| Double Jeopardy | Convictions for attempted carjacking and§ 924(c) violate Double Jeopardy. | Challenge based on convictions and layering. | Foreclosed by controlling Fifth Circuit precedent. |
| Acceptance of responsibility adjustment | District court erred by not granting acceptance adjustment due to Government handling. | Adjustment should be available; district court lacked justification. | Affirmed; district court’s decision grounded; PSR basis valid. |
| Plea agreement breach | Government failed to move for acceptance of responsibility per plea. | Record shows government did move for acceptance. | Not a breach; record demonstrates government moved for acceptance. |
| Judicial reliance on PSR obstruction finding | Obstruction finding implies no acceptance of responsibility. | Obstruction adjustment properly reflected lack of acceptance. | upheld; PSR-based adjustment warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (establishes standard for competency to stand trial)
- Holmes v. King, 709 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1983) (competency review context for guilty pleas)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2002) (plain-error standard for post-plea competency issues)
- United States v. Singleton, 16 F.3d 1419 (5th Cir. 1994) (Double Jeopardy and related sentencing considerations foreclosed)
- United States v. Cordero, 465 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2006) (support for upholding district court’s acceptance-of-responsibility ruling)
- United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2002) (affirmation of PSR-based sentencing calculations and adjustments)