United States v. Rufino Loredo-Mendez , 638 F. App'x 423 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-41693 Document: 00513428417 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 15-41693 March 17, 2016
___________________
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
RUFINO LOREDO-MENDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:14-CR-1050
_______________________
Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rufino Loredo-Mendez moves this court (1) to vacate the sentence
imposed in this case and remand for resentencing, and (2) to issue the mandate
forthwith. The United States agrees that it is appropriate for this court to
vacate Mr. Loredo-Mendez’s sentence and remand for resentencing, and does
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 15-41693 Document: 00513428417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2016
No. 15-41693
not oppose the motion to issue mandate forthwith. For the following reasons,
we grant both motions.
Loredo-Mendez was convicted and sentenced for being found unlawfully
present in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
At sentencing, he received an 8-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) on the basis of a 2000 North Carolina conviction for possession
with intent to manufacture, sell, and deliver marijuana, which the district
court counted as a “a conviction for a felony drug trafficking offense for which
the sentence imposed was 13 months or less” and for which Loredo-Mendez did
not receive criminal history points.
In his motion, Loredo-Mendez argues that, under the Fourth Circuit’s
decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc),
Loredo-Mendez’s 2000 conviction did not support the enhancement because it
was not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding a year and thus was
not a “felony.” See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.2 (defining “felony” for purposes of
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) as an offense “punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year”). At sentencing, Loredo-Mendez did not object to the
enhancement. Thus, we review the issue for plain error. See United States v.
Scher, 601 F.3d 408, 411 (5th Cir. 2010). On plain-error review, we will reverse
only if “(1) there is an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects [the
defendant's] substantial rights.” United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878, 886
(5th Cir. 2000). Even if these conditions are met, the decision whether to
correct a forfeited error remains soundly within our discretion; and we exercise
that discretion only if an error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
735-36 (1993). Here, Loredo-Mendez’s North Carolina conviction was
punishable by not more than 8 months. See Simmons, 649 F.3d at 240; N.C.
2
Case: 15-41693 Document: 00513428417 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/17/2016
No. 15-41693
Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17(c), (d). Thus, it was not a felony for the purposes of
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). See United States v. Zacarias-Lopez, 583 F. App'x
354 (5th Cir. 2014).
We further conclude that the plain error identified and acknowledged by
the parties affected Loredo-Mendez’s substantial rights and the fairness,
integrity, and reputation of the judicial proceedings. See United States v.
Alarcon, 261 F.3d 416, 423-24 (5th Cir. 2001); Zacarias-Lopez, 583 F. App'x
354. But for the error in applying the 8-level enhancement, Loredo-Mendez’s
sentencing range would have been 10 to 16 months, which is lower than the
20-month sentence he received. “Generally, when a trial court incorrectly
applies the United States Sentencing Guidelines, as it did here,” a defendant’s
substantial rights are affected, and “the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings is seriously affected.” Id. Thus, we will
exercise our discretion to correct the error.
Loredo-Mendez also moves this court to issue its mandate forthwith,
because his projected release date is April 19, 2016. The government is likewise
unopposed to that motion.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s unopposed motion to
vacate the district court’s judgment and remand case for resentencing is
GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s unopposed motion
to issue the mandate forthwith is GRANTED.
3