United States v. Justin Hernandez ( 2020 )

Case: 19-51055 Document: 00515557116 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 9, 2020
No. 19-51055 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Justin Rene Hernandez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:18-CR-283-5
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Justin Rene Hernandez pleaded guilty without benefit of a plea
agreement to conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced above
the guidelines range of 292-365 months to a sentence of 408 months of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-51055 Document: 00515557116 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
No. 19-51055
imprisonment. He now complains that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable, urging that the district court failed to account for his personal
history and characteristics and gave undue weight to his prior convictions,
which were already accounted for in the guidelines, particularly by virtue of
his career-offender designation.
We review preserved challenges to the substantive reasonableness of
a sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See Holguin-Hernandez v.
United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766–67 (2020); United States v. Cisneros-
Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). “A non-Guideline sentence
unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does
not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear
error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v.
Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).
Contrary to Hernandez’s argument, the record demonstrates that the
district court considered his personal history and characteristics in imposing
sentencing, including his abusive father and alcoholic, drug-addicted mother,
his step-father’s incarceration, and his own early substance abuse, as well as
his struggles in society following his manslaughter conviction at age 18. To
the extent that Hernandez asserts that an upward variance was unreasonable
because it was based on his prior convictions, which were already accounted
for in his guidelines calculations, the argument is unavailing. See United
States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court was
entitled to consider and place appropriate weight on his criminal history,
which included not only his manslaughter conviction but a conviction for
aggravated assault and numerous convictions for assault causing bodily
injury, some of which were unscored. See § 3553(a)(1); see also United States
v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440–41 (5th Cir. 2013); Brantley, 537 F.3d at 350.
2
Case: 19-51055 Document: 00515557116 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
No. 19-51055
Hernandez fails to show that the district court failed to account for a
factor that warranted significant weight or that it gave undue weight to an
improper factor. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. We therefore defer to the
district court’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole,
warrant the variance. See Brantley, 537 F.3d at 349; see also Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 48, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
3