United States v. Segura ( 2023 )

Case: 23-20027 Document: 00516955990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-20027
FILED
November 3, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Rafael Romero Segura,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-15-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The government appeals the imposition of concurrent sentences on
Rafael Segura’s underlying conviction of discharging a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii),
and another federal sentence imposed in a different case for illegal reentry.
The government asserts that consecutive sentences are statutorily mandated
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20027 Document: 00516955990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2023
No. 23-20027
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(iii).
The government preserved this argument in the district court; thus,
we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Reyes-Lugo, 238 F.3d
305, 307–08 (5th Cir. 2001). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases
its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evi-
dence.” United States v. Castillo, 430 F.3d 230, 238 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). We review questions of statutory con-
struction or interpretation de novo. United States v. Gomez, 960 F.3d 173, 176–
77 (5th Cir. 2020).
The firearms conviction was subject to a ten-year statutory minimum.
See § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Under the plain language of § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), that
sentence is to be consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, federal or
state, and the district court lacked discretion, under 18 U.S.C. § 3584, to im-
pose concurrent sentences. See United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 6, 11
(1997); see also Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453, 455 (2023); United States
v. Krumnow, 476 F.3d 294, 298 (5th Cir. 2007). “Given the straightforward
statutory command” of a consecutive sentence, Gonzales, 520 U.S. at 6, the
court erred by ordering that Segura’s § 924(c) sentence run concurrently
with the illegal-reentry sentence, see id. at 6, 11; see also Krumnow, 476 F.3d
at 298.
For the foregoing reasons, Segura’s conviction is AFFIRMED, his
sentence is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for resentencing.
2