United States v. Lorenzo Valdez
631 F. App'x 239
5th Cir.2016Background
- Lorenzo Valdez is a federal prisoner serving a 360-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Valdez moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct his presentence report (PSR), arguing his prior Texas DWI convictions were wrongly assigned criminal-history points.
- Valdez relied on this court’s decision in United States v. Chapa-Garza (holding Texas DWI is not a crime of violence for a §2L1.2 enhancement) to challenge the PSR entries.
- The district court denied the Rule 36 motion; Valdez appealed. The panel reviewed the denial (de novo where no factual disputes) and concluded Valdez was not entitled to relief.
- Valdez also raised, for the first time on appeal, that the district court misspoke at sentencing by referencing methamphetamine instead of cocaine; he argued that raised an illegal conviction/sentence risk.
- The court found the methamphetamine reference was a clerical or verbal error that did not affect the conviction or guidelines calculation and therefore caused no prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 36 required correction of PSR criminal-history points for prior Texas DWI convictions (relying on Chapa-Garza) | Valdez: PSR should be corrected to remove points for DWI in light of Chapa-Garza | Govt/District Ct: Chapa-Garza addressed a §2L1.2 enhancement for crimes of violence; not applicable here; relief sought would require resentencing, not a clerical correction | Denied — Rule 36 not available to obtain the recalculation/resentencing Valdez seeks; Chapa-Garza inapplicable to his guidelines calculation |
| Whether the district court’s verbal reference to methamphetamine rendered Valdez’s conviction/sentence illegal | Valdez: District court’s reference shows he was sentenced for a methamphetamine offense, not cocaine | Govt/District Ct: The reference was a misspeaking; judgment and guidelines reflect cocaine; no substantive role of methamphetamine | Denied — reference was an inadvertent misspeaking, caused no prejudice, and does not show plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mackay, 757 F.3d 195 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 36 denials where no factual disputes)
- United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding prior Texas DWI is not a crime of violence for §2L1.2 enhancement)
- United States v. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022 (5th Cir. 1995) (Rule 36 cannot be used to obtain resentencing based on recalculated guidelines)
- United States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273 (5th Cir.) (plain-error review for arguments raised first on appeal)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (prejudice requirement in plain-error review)