United States v. Victor Mendoza
667 F. App'x 504
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Victor Mendoza pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and was sentenced to a 60‑month above‑Guidelines term.
- Mendoza initially raised multiple sentencing‑related claims on appeal; two claims (leadership enhancement and endangerment enhancement) were abandoned for lack of briefing.
- The presentence report (PSR) attributed to Mendoza responsibility for at least 81 transported undocumented aliens based on uncontroverted evidence that he directed the smuggling operation.
- The district court applied an upward variance after considering counsel’s mitigation, Mendoza’s allocution, the PSR, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
- Mendoza argued on appeal that (1) the alien‑count enhancement was improper, (2) the above‑Guidelines sentence was unreasonable, and (3) the Government breached the plea agreement.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed unpreserved challenges for plain error and affirmed Mendoza’s conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership and endangerment enhancements | Mendoza contested these enhancements | Government supported enhancements | Abandoned by Mendoza for failure to brief; not considered |
| Accountability for transporting at least 81 aliens (offense‑level enhancement) | Mendoza argued enhancement was unsupported | PSR contained reliable, uncontroverted evidence showing he directed participants who transported ≥81 aliens | Enhancement upheld; district court did not clearly err |
| Reasonableness of 60‑month above‑Guidelines sentence | Mendoza argued the upward variance was substantively unreasonable | District court weighed mitigation, allocution, PSR, and §3553(a) factors | Reviewed for plain error; variance justified and not substantively unreasonable |
| Government breach of plea agreement | Mendoza claimed the Government breached promises regarding sentencing/enhancements | Government limited its promises to recommending acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction and dismissing counts; it complied | No plain error; Mendoza failed to show a breach of the plea agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Conlan, 786 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2015) (briefing requirements on appeal)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (attribution of co‑conspirator conduct to a leader for sentencing)
- United States v. Williams, 610 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2010) (sufficiency of PSR evidence for sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (plain‑error review for unpreserved sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Chandler, 732 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2013) (review of district court’s consideration of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Gerezano‑Rosales, 692 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2012) (substantive‑reasonableness review of upward variances)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (standard for plain‑error review)
- United States v. Roberts, 624 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2010) (defendant’s burden to prove Government breached plea agreement)
- United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2014) (defendant’s reasonable understanding governs plea‑agreement breach analysis)