United States v. Mendoza ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50573 Document: 00516780714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 9, 2023
No. 22-50573
Lyle W. Cayce
____________
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jamie Mendoza,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-65-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Stephen A. Higginson:*
Jamie Mendoza pleaded guilty to transportation of illegal aliens and
was sentenced within the guidelines range to 24 months of imprisonment.1
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
1
Mendoza pleaded guilty to count 2 of his indictment, charging him with
transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) & (B)(ii), which
carries a 5-year maximum sentence. However, his judgment states that he is guilty under 8
U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) & (B)(i), which carries a 10-year maximum sentence, for
transporting illegal aliens for financial gain. The record does not reflect a finding by the
court that Mendoza acted for financial gain. Nonetheless, the parties do not acknowledge
Case: 22-50573 Document: 00516780714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
No. 22-50573
The district court applied an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
2L1.1(b)(6) because, according to Mendoza’s presentence report (PSR), he
fled from Border Patrol agents, well exceeding the posted speed limit, with
seven illegal alien passengers in his vehicle. See § 2L1.1(b)(6) (increasing a
defendant’s offense level where the “offense involved intentionally or
recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to
another person”).
For the first time on appeal, Mendoza challenges the district court’s
application of the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6). Our review is
for plain error only. United States v. Ramirez, 37 F.4th 233, 235 (5th Cir.
2022). To prevail on plain error review, Mendoza must demonstrate “(1) an
error; (2) that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute;
and (3) that affects his substantial rights.” Id. (citation omitted). If he does
so, this court has the discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.(alteration adopted) (citation omitted).
Mendoza first argues that the district court erred in adopting the
PSR’s factual findings with respect to his flight from Border Patrol agents
because the PSR lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. We need not address
this argument because Mendoza stipulated to the truth of the prosecution’s
factual basis at rearraignment. Specifically, he admitted under oath and in
open court that he engaged in a “high-speed chase” as he “attempted to flee
from Border Patrol . . . well exceeding the posted speed limit.” Given that
Mendoza admitted to the very facts whose reliability in the PSR he now
challenges, any error in the district court’s reliance on the PSR did not affect
Mendoza’s substantial rights. See United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641,
_____________________
this inconsistency, and because it does not affect Mendoza’s guidelines range, we do not
further address it here.
2
Case: 22-50573 Document: 00516780714 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
No. 22-50573
649 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[S]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong
presumption of verity.”); United States v. Ramos-Rodriguez, 136 F.3d 465,
468-69 (5th Cir. 1998) (stating that defendant’s admissions at his plea
colloquy are “pivotal” and “will not easily be discounted”); see also United
States v. Avalos-Sanchez, 975 F.3d 436, 441 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting that we
may review “the entire record” when we examine factual-basis sufficiency
supporting a conviction under plain-error review). Given Mendoza’s own
admission, moreover, “this is not the type of case that implicates our
discretion because it does not call into question the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Ibanez, 532 F.
App’x 544, 547 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
732 (1993)).2
Separately, Mendoza argues that the PSR’s factual findings are
insufficient to support an enhancement under § 2L1.1(b)(6). We have
confirmed that the application of this enhancement “requires a fact-specific
inquiry,” United States v. Mata, 624 F.3d 170, 174 (5th Cir. 2010), and have
found that this enhancement is proper where “traffic violations put the
passengers at high risk of an accident,” United States v. Garcia-Solis, 927 F.3d
308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2019). It was not clearly erroneous for the district court
to find that Mendoza’s “high-speed chase,” “flee[ing] from Border Patrol”
and “well exceeding the speed limit,” put his seven passengers at high risk
of an accident.
We AFFIRM.
_____________________
2
Mendoza also argues that the PSR is inconsistent with the probable cause
affidavit, which does not describe the chase and states only that Mendoza “exceeded” the
speed limit. But this is no inconsistency. The probable cause affidavit simply does not
describe the chase in detail, and as the Government persuasively suggests, this is because
Mendoza’s indictment was for transporting illegal aliens, not fleeing authorities. This does
not demonstrate plain error.
3