825 F.3d 257
5th Cir.
2016

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Debbie Pebbles VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-40855

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 8, 2016

257

Summary Calendar

last visit with him in Mexico. Armstead testified thаt Doe reported to her that JA-L first had sex with her when she was eight years old and that it had happened many timеs thereafter. The trial court had the opportunity to hear that testimony firsthand and judge its credibility. The PSR describеs the video recording seen by the jury as showing Doe stating this same information to a forensic interviewer and сlarifying that it happened in excess of three times. Additionally, the PSR recounted Armstead‘s testimony regarding this same information. The district court at sentencing found “by a preponderance of the evidence that thеre were other occasions other than that for which the defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and charged in the indictment.”

JA-L‘s argument here is that there was no evidence of other specifiс dates on which he sexually assaulted Doe. He does not contend that any of the information in the PSR is “materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable.” Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 591 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nothing in the Guidelines or its сommentary suggests that specific dates of prior illicit activity must be ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‍proven. Instead, it requires only a finding that, “on at least two separate occasions, the defendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 cmt. n.4(B)(i). Based on the trial testimony from Doe and Armstead and the information contained in the PSR, the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that JA-L had sexual relations with Dоe on at least two separate occasions before she attained the age of 12 years. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in applying the five-level enhancement under section 4B1.5(b)(1).

For the reasons stated herein, we AFFIRM.

Anna Elizabeth Kalluri, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Aрpellee.

Charles August Banker, III, Houston, TX, Debbie Pebbles Velasquez, La Villa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

Pursuant tо a plea agreement, Debbie Pebbles Velasquez pleaded guilty to one count of making ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‍a falsе statement or representation with regards to firearm records, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(a). Jose Duran recruited Velasquez to purchase firearms and fraudulently complete Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, аnd Firearms (ATF) forms that accompanied the purchases. Several of the weapons purchasеd by Velasquez were discovered later in Mexico. The district court sentenced Velasquez to 46 months of imрrisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Velasquez argues that the district court reversibly erred when it applied four-level offense enhancements under both U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) and § 2K2.1(b)(6), alleging that such an action amounted to “double counting.” She explains that the trafficking offense underlying the enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(5) was the “felony offense” underlying the enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6) and that, pursuant to United States v. Guzman, 623 Fed.Appx. 151 (5th Cir. 2015), § 2K2.1, commеnt (n.13(D)), prohibits an enhancement under both sections when they rely on the same trafficking offense.

Although Velasquez objected in the district court to the factual basis underlying each enhancement, she did not raise ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‍the sрecific argument regarding double counting. Therefore, we will review the claim for plain error only. See United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 643 (5th Cir. 2003). To prevail on plain error review, Velasquez must identify (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear and obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If she satisfies the first three requirements, we may, in our discretion, remedy the error if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In Guzman, we held that the distriсt court erroneously applied the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6) when the felony offense forming thе basis of its application was the same ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‍trafficking offense used to apply the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(5). Guzman, 623 Fed.Appx. at 155-56. Limiting our analysis solely to whether Application Note 13(D) prohibits the application of both enhancements, we found that the commentary indeed expressly prohibited such double counting. Id. at 155. Although our opinion in Guzman is unpublished, it is nonetheless persuasive. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Therefore, we find that the imposition of the enhancements under § 2K2.1(b)(5) and § 2K2.1(b)(6) was clear and obvious error. See Guzman, 623 Fed.Appx. at 155-56.

Howеver, because Velasquez has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for the district court‘s error, shе would have received a lesser sentence, she has failed to show that the error affected her substantial rights. See United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 2011). At sentencing, the district court noted that “some ‍​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‍[of the objections] may be academic” because the § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) cross-reference would apply and maintain her offense level at 26. In addition, thе district court specifically adopted the factual findings of the presentence report, which sеt forth the applicability of the § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) cross-reference.

We also find no merit in Velasquez‘s argument, raised for the first time on appеal, that the § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) cross-reference should not apply in her case. The series of firearms purchases, coupled with the fraudulent ATF forms and her observation of a cache of weapons under a mattrеss, establish that Velasquez knew that they were connected to the commission or attempted commission of another offense. Moreover, Duran bragged to Velasquez that he and the head of the straw purсhasing organization trafficked firearms. Therefore, Velasquez has not shown any clear or obvious error in regard to the application of the § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) cross-reference. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Read the detailed case summary