United States v. Nunez
22-50012
5th Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Police, acting on a tip and a controlled buy from Adrian Nunez’s minor stepson, searched the apartment shared by Nunez and found a shotgun; Nunez admitted to owning it.
- Nunez was indicted and convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- The main procedural issue arose because the district court combined the suppression hearing with the bench trial, giving Nunez no opportunity to enter a conditional plea that could preserve his suppression claim and still seek a reduction for acceptance of responsibility (AOR) under the federal sentencing guidelines.
- At trial, Nunez stipulated to most elements of the offense and ultimately pled guilty mid-trial, but the district court denied an AOR reduction, partly based on timing and trial contestation.
- Nunez was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment, which he appealed, arguing denial of AOR and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Nunez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of acceptance of responsibility (AOR) | Sought to suppress evidence, not deny factual guilt; combining hearing/trial barred timely plea | Denial justified due to untimely plea and lack of conditional plea | District court erred; combining hearings denied fair opportunity for AOR credit |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Sentence excessive; court failed to give weight to mitigating circumstances | Sentence within guidelines; court considered all relevant factors | Sentence vacated (for above error); no abuse of discretion found on reasonableness |
| Eligibility for conditional plea | Not able to enter conditional plea before trial due to procedure | Could have bargained for conditional plea | Lack of pretrial ruling made conditional plea unavailable |
| Effect of suppression motion on AOR | Suppression motion shouldn't bar AOR | Pursuit of suppression is untimely and bars AOR | Pursuit of suppression alone does not preclude AOR credit |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Najera, 915 F.3d 997 (5th Cir. 2019) (defendant may receive AOR reduction when proceeding to trial solely to preserve suppression claims)
- United States v. Maldonado, 42 F.3d 906 (5th Cir. 1995) (explains limitation of AOR for those who contest factual guilt)
- United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (sentence within guidelines presumed reasonable)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (discusses when personal characteristics may affect reasonableness review)