United States v. Miguel Orozco-Elizondo
679 F. App'x 367
5th Cir.2017Background
- In Oct. 2015 Miguel Angel Orozco-Elizondo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326); PSR calculated a total offense level of 21 (including a 16-level enhancement for a prior alien-smuggling conviction) and criminal-history category II, producing a 41–51 month Guidelines range.
- Orozco-Elizondo sought a downward variance based on circumstances of his reentry: he alleged threats near his mother’s store in Nuevo Laredo and that he fled across the Rio Grande after men pursued him while driving his girlfriend, Gloria Carrizales, to the bridge.
- At sentencing defense counsel requested a 20–24 month sentence, mentioned Carrizales was in the courtroom, but repeatedly declined the court’s offers to proffer her testimony before the sentence was announced.
- The district court imposed a 41-month prison sentence (the government recommendation). Immediately after sentencing counsel attempted to proffer Carrizales’s testimony; the court refused and declined to reopen the sentencing hearing.
- Orozco-Elizondo appealed the district court’s refusal to reopen the sentencing hearing to allow Carrizales to testify; the Fifth Circuit reviews denial of such reopening for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a request to reopen sentencing to allow witness testimony | Carrizales’s testimony on duress/imperfect coercion could have altered the sentence | Court properly exercised discretion because defense had multiple opportunities to proffer testimony before sentence was announced and declined | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simpson, [citation="408 F. App'x 830"] (5th Cir.) (standard: abuse-of-discretion review for reopening hearings)
- United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1989) (district court discretion in reopening detention hearings)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 1995) (denial of motion to reopen evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir. 1985) (factors for reopening evidence; distinguishable facts and inapplicable here)