United States v. Saucedo-Vasquez , 102 F. App'x 389 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                           United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS        June 22, 2004
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-20833
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ELISEO SAUCEDO-VASQUEZ,
    also known as Cuauthtemoc Saucedo-Vasquez,
    also known as Vincent Bello,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-02-CR-576-ALL
    --------------------
    Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Eliseo Saucedo-Vasquez (Saucedo) appeals his sentence
    following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the
    transportation of illegal aliens within the United States for
    commercial advantage and private financial gain, and causing
    an alien’s death, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) and
    18 U.S.C. § 2.    He argues that the district court erred in
    increasing his offense level by eight levels pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 03-20833
    -2-
    § 2L1.1(b)(6)(4) because the district court failed to make a
    finding that he acted recklessly in creating a threat of serious
    bodily injury or death.
    Section 2L1.1(b)(6) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides,
    “If any person died or sustained bodily injury, increase the
    offense level according to the seriousness of the injury.”
    Section 2L1.1(b)(5) provides for a sentence enhancement “[i]f the
    offense involved intentionally or recklessly creating a
    substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another
    person.”    That U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6) does not specify reckless
    conduct as a requirement for the enhancement, while U.S.S.G.
    § 2L1.1(b)(5) specifies it, is a clear indication that reckless
    conduct is not necessary for an increase under U.S.S.G.
    § 2L1.1(b)(6).    See United States v. Garcia-Guerrero, 
    313 F.3d 892
    , 895 (5th Cir. 2002).
    Because Saucedo has failed to demonstrate any error, plain
    or otherwise, in the district court’s application of the U.S.S.G.
    § 2L1.1(b)(6)(4) enhancement, the district court’s judgment is
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-20833

Citation Numbers: 102 F. App'x 389

Judges: Barksdale, Demoss, Clement

Filed Date: 6/22/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024