United States v. Duberek ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10071 Document: 00516963550 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10071
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 10, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Alexander Yoichi Duberek,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:21-CR-101-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Alexander Yoichi Duberek appeals the above-guidelines sentence of
life imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to interstate domestic
violence resulting in the death of the victim. See 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a)(1),
(b)(1). Duberek contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively
_____________________
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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: 23-10071 Document: 00516963550 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2023
No. 23-10071
unreasonable. Specifically, he argues that the district court erred by
determining that he did not suffer from serious coercion, blackmail, or
duress. Therefore, he asserts, the court’s variance in this case failed to give
proper weight to that serious coercion, blackmail, and duress and represented
a clear error of judgment in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
We review both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). At sentencing, Duberek attempted to demonstrate
that he traveled from California to Texas to murder the victim in response to
serious coercion, blackmail, or duress caused by the victim. The district
court considered that evidence and concluded that it did not materially
mitigate other sentencing factors, including the degree of premeditation and
violence of the offense. The district court’s assessment of the limited
persuasiveness or weight of Duberek’s evidence relative to the undisputed
facts of the premeditated murder was not “illogical or implausible,” and
Duberek therefore has not shown that the sentence is procedurally
unreasonable. United States v. Hebert, 813 F. 3d 551, 561 (5th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
As to substantive reasonableness, following a detailed discussion of
the § 3553(a) factors in light of the offense and Duberek’s evidence regarding
his motive, the district court determined that the only reasonable sentence
was life imprisonment. Because we are not persuaded that the district court
erred in its weighing or balancing of the § 3553(a) factors or in determining
that the extent of the variance was warranted, Duberek fails to show that the
life sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51;
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2