United States v. Nicolas Fuentes-Cruz
690 F. App'x 219
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Nicolas Fuentes-Cruz convicted of being unlawfully present in the U.S. after a prior removal following a felony; sentenced to 57 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release (within Guidelines).
- At sentencing, the district court adopted the PSR, heard and overruled defense objections, and denied requests for a low-end Guidelines sentence.
- Fuentes-Cruz did not preserve his procedural-plain-error objection to the adequacy of the court’s explanation for the sentence or to the court’s failure to explicitly rule on his objection to length.
- He also challenged the application of a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on a prior Oregon delivery conviction, arguing the Oregon statute is not categorically a controlled-substance offense and is not divisible (invoking Mathis).
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed both claims for plain error and found neither demonstrated a clear or obvious error warranting relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain the sentence and not explicitly ruling on objections | Fuentes-Cruz: court failed to provide sufficient § 3553(a) explanation and did not address his objection that 57 months was too long | Government: district court satisfied explanation requirement by adopting PSR, addressing objections, and explaining reasons contextually; no plain error | No procedural error on plain-error review; transcript showed consideration of arguments and reasoned basis for sentence |
| Whether applying the 12-level § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) drug-trafficking enhancement based on prior Oregon delivery conviction was erroneous under Mathis | Fuentes-Cruz: Oregon statute not categorically a controlled-substance offense and not divisible, so Mathis prohibits using the modified categorical approach | Government: application of enhancement was not clearly erroneous given unsettled post-Mathis law on Oregon statute; reasonable dispute exists | No plain error; issue unsettled in circuit and Supreme Court, so not a clear or obvious error |
Key Cases Cited
- Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2010) (standards for plain-error relief)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court need not recite detailed § 3553(a) analysis if record shows consideration)
- United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d 289 (5th Cir.) (consider sentencing statements in context of entire proceeding)
- United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799 (5th Cir.) (whether error is clear depends on state of law at time of appeal)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (limits on using modified categorical approach where statute not divisible)
- United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir.) (applying Mathis principles post-decision)
- United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 415 F.3d 452 (5th Cir.) (plain-error review standard for guideline enhancement issues)