United States v. Holguin ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50083 Document: 00516679541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50083
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ March 16, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Chayna Holguin,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-13-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Chayna Holguin pleaded guilty to importation of 40 grams or more of
fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of
fentanyl. These offenses carry five-year statutory minimum sentences. See
21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), (b)(2)(F); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B)(vi). However, over the Government’s objection, the district court
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50083 Document: 00516679541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2023
No. 22-50083
concluded that Holguin was eligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f), as amended by the First Step Act. Relying on the Ninth Circuit’s
reasoning in United States v. Lopez, 998 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 2021), the district
court determined that § 3553(f)(1) only excludes defendants (otherwise
eligible under the other parts of the statute) who meet all three disqualifying
criteria enumerated in that subsection. Thus, although Holguin had a prior
three-point offense, she was eligible for safety valve relief because she did not
also have four criminal history points, excluding points from a one-point
offense, and a prior two-point violent offense. See § 3553(f)(1). The district
court sentenced Holguin below the statutory minimum to concurrent terms
of 37 months of imprisonment.
The Government appeals the district court’s determination that
Holguin was eligible for safety valve relief as provided in § 3553(f) and the
resulting imposition of a sentence lower than the statutory minimum. We
review the district court’s legal interpretation of the safety valve statute de
novo. United States v. Towns, 718 F.3d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 2013).
After Holguin’s judgment of conviction was entered, we decided
United States v. Palomares, 52 F.4th 640 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed
(U.S. Dec. 21, 2022) (No. 22-6391). We held in Palomares that “defendants
[are] ineligible for safety valve relief if they run afoul of any one of [the]
requirements” enumerated in § 3553(f)(1). 52 F.4th at 647. Looking to the
text of the statute, we rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conjunctive approach of
linguistic interpretation in Lopez and conversely applied the distributive
approach. See id. at 642-47.
As both the Government and Holguin aptly agree, because Holguin
had a prior three-point offense, Palomares disqualifies her from safety valve
relief under § 3553(f). See Palomares, 52 F.4th at 647. Further, although
Holguin argues that Palomares was incorrectly decided as a matter of
2
Case: 22-50083 Document: 00516679541 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2023
No. 22-50083
statutory interpretation, she and the Government agree that our decision in
Palomares is binding until the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc
overrules this safety valve issue. See United States v. James, 950 F.3d 289,
292-93 (5th Cir. 2020).
In light of the foregoing, Holguin’s sentence is VACATED, and the
matter is REMANDED for further proceedings.
3