United States v. Flores-Martinez ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-51293
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    VALENTIN FLORES-MARTINEZ,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    _____________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. DR-00-CR-494-ALL-OG
    _____________________________________________
    October 15, 2001
    Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Valentin Flores-Martinez appeals his sentence for his guilty plea conviction
    on one charge of transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. He
    maintains that he should have received a three-level increase in his offense level
    computation under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(A), rather than the six-level increase the
    PSR assigned under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(B). The Government agrees that the
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    six-level increase was erroneous and that Flores-Martinez’s sentence should be
    vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
    Flores-Martinez transported 19 illegal aliens. He should have received a
    three-level enhancement to his base offense level of 12.1 Considering a two-level
    adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a),(b), his
    adjusted offense level should have been 13.
    Flores-Martinez did not object to the calculation of his criminal history score;
    consequently, our review is for plain error.2 To establish plain error, he must show
    that the error is clear or obvious error and that it affects his substantial rights.3 The
    instant misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines qualifies as such. Accordingly,
    we VACATE Flores-Martinez’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing. In doing
    so we intimate no view as to the propriety of any sentence within the applicable
    guidelines range.
    Sentence VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing.
    1
    U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(A).
    2
    United States v. Hawkins, 
    87 F.3d 722
    (5th Cir. 1996).
    3
    United States v. Calverley, 
    37 F.3d 160
    (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v.
    Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    (1993)).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-51293

Filed Date: 10/16/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021