United States v. Sergio Michel-Villalobos
697 F. App'x 435
5th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Sergio Michel-Villalobos pleaded guilty to attempted illegal reentry after deportation and received a 60-month above-Guidelines sentence.
- The presentence report (PSR) attributed to him a prior Mexican homicide conviction; the PSR also noted other foreign records (a Mexican "rap sheet" and a media report of a theft arrest).
- Michel-Villalobos argued the district court relied on uncharged foreign conduct and on unauthenticated/inadequate foreign documents when enhancing/departing upward.
- He also contended the Mexican conviction should not be used because the Mexican judicial system allegedly lacks adequate due-process protections.
- The district court relied on the PSR’s finding of a valid Mexican homicide conviction and explained it was not basing the sentence on the rap sheet or media report.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed reasonableness for abuse of discretion (procedural and substantive), addressing reliance on PSR findings, burden to rebut PSR, and burden to prove constitutional invalidity of prior foreign convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence relied on uncharged foreign conduct | Michel-Villalobos: district court relied on foreign arrest/rap sheet and media report | Government: court focused on the valid Mexican homicide conviction, not other records | Court: No; district court made clear it relied on the homicide conviction, not the rap sheet/media report |
| Whether district court improperly relied on unauthenticated/inadequate foreign documents in PSR | Michel-Villalobos: PSR’s foreign documentation was informal and unauthenticated, so court erred | Government: PSR found a conviction; defendant did not rebut that finding | Court: No error—defendant failed to rebut or assert PSR finding was materially untrue, so court could adopt PSR without further inquiry |
| Whether prior foreign conviction can be used despite alleged foreign due-process defects | Michel-Villalobos: Mexican judicial system lacks adequate due process, so conviction should be excluded | Government: defendant bears burden to prove constitutional invalidity and failed to do so | Court: No merit—defendant did not allege he personally was deprived of due process and failed to meet his burden |
| Whether the upward departure/variance was substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a) | Michel-Villalobos: upward departure/variance not supported by facts and procedures | Government: departure advanced § 3553(a)(2) objectives and was justified by case facts | Court: No abuse of discretion—defendant abandoned any argument that the departure did not advance § 3553(a)(2); sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of reasonableness)
- United States v. Nava, 624 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2010) (defendant must rebut PSR findings to avoid adoption by court)
- United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1990) (court may adopt PSR factual findings absent rebuttal)
- United States v. Ramirez, 367 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2004) (same principle regarding PSR adoption)
- United States v. Richardson, 781 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2015) (defendant bears burden to prove constitutional invalidity of prior conviction)
- United States v. Zelaya-Rosales, 707 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2013) (standards for upward departure under § 3553(a))
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (failure to brief an argument results in abandonment)