United States v. Tamez
20-40848
| 5th Cir. | Dec 21, 2021Background
- Nathan Lee Tamez pleaded guilty to (1) conspiring to transport an alien resulting in death (8 U.S.C. §1324) and (2) possessing a firearm as a felon (18 U.S.C. §922(g)).
- District court applied three enhancements under U.S.S.G. §2L1.1(b): for discharge of a firearm, for intentionally/recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, and for the death of another; Tamez received a within-Guidelines 151-month sentence.
- On appeal Tamez challenged (a) the validity of his guilty plea as to the §1324 charge (arguing death must have been reasonably foreseeable), (b) the three §2L1.1(b) enhancements, and (c) the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
- Plea-challenge review was for plain error because Tamez did not preserve the issue at rearraignment or move to withdraw his plea.
- For preserved sentencing issues, the court reviewed Guidelines application de novo and factual findings for clear error; substantive reasonableness was reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea re: foreseeability of death under §1324(a)(1)(B)(iv) | Gov't: conviction valid; statute does not require proof of foreseeability | Tamez: Govt must prove death was reasonably foreseeable to him | No plain error; law unsettled on foreseeability for §1324, so error not clear or obvious; plea upheld |
| §2L1.1(b)(5)(A) — discharge of a firearm enhancement | Gov't: Tamez was likely armed and, as a “soldado” at the meeting, firearm discharge was foreseeable | Tamez: discharge not his act or not foreseeable to him | No clear error in district court’s factual finding; enhancement proper |
| §2L1.1(b)(6) — intentional/reckless creation of substantial risk | Gov't: enhancement applicable | Tamez: challenged (but did not adequately brief) | Issue abandoned on appeal for inadequate briefing; court did not address merits |
| §2L1.1(b)(7) — death enhancement and causation | Gov't: death resulted from the alien-exchange in which Tamez participated; Guideline relevant-conduct causation suffices | Tamez: death not sufficiently connected; proximate cause required | Enhancement proper; proximate-cause not required under the Guideline/relevant-conduct approach |
| Substantive reasonableness of 151-month sentence | Gov't: within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable; court considered §3553(a) factors | Tamez: sentence substantively unreasonable | Affirmed; Tamez failed to rebut the presumption or show misweighing of §3553(a) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited objections)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (procedures for challenging guilty pleas on appeal)
- United States v. Ruiz-Hernandez, 890 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 2018) (not deciding whether foreseeability is required under §1324)
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (discussing causation in statutes addressing death)
- United States v. Ceron, 775 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2014) (law unsettled precludes finding clear or obvious error)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing review standards post-Booker)
- United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2014) (foreseeability is a factual finding reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2014) (death enhancement does not require proximate causation)
- United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 2017) (within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable)