United States v. Seneca ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30075 Document: 00516983333 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________
FILED
November 29, 2023
No. 23-30075
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Chance Joseph Seneca,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:21-CR-43-1
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Chance Joseph Seneca presents two challenges to his 509-months’-
imprisonment sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for
kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201: the court erred in applying a
Guideline § 3A1.1(a) enhancement (“intentionally selected . . . victim”
because of actual or perceived characteristics, including gender or sexual
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30075 Document: 00516983333 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
No. 23-30075
orientation) because he harbored no hatred or animus toward a person’s
gender or sexual orientation and, in the alternative, because there is
insufficient evidence he intentionally selected a victim based on such
orientation; and his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly-preserved
objection to an ultimate sentence, as in this instance, is reviewed for
substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51;
United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In
that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the
Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g.,
United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
Seneca’s procedural challenges are unavailing because the
Government shows that, even if Guideline § 3A1.1(a) was applied in error,
the error was harmless. As Seneca states correctly, “it is not enough for the
district court to say the same sentence would have been imposed but for the
error”. United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347, 353 (5th Cir. 2017). Here,
the court considered the applicable Guidelines sentencing range both with
and without the challenged enhancement and affirmed it would give the same
sentence either way. See United States v. Guzman-Rendon, 864 F.3d 409, 411
(5th Cir. 2017) (explaining harmless error is shown when “the district court
considered both ranges (the one now found incorrect and the one now
deemed correct) and explained that it would give the same sentence either
way”).
2
Case: 23-30075 Document: 00516983333 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
No. 23-30075
In asserting his sentence is substantively unreasonable, Seneca claims
the court: overlooked important mitigating evidence; and the factors it
invoked do not justify its upward variance.
The court reviewed Seneca’s sentencing memorandum and his
objections to the presentence investigation report, listened to his statement
and the contentions of his counsel at sentencing, and acknowledged the
presence of mitigating factors. The court decided, however, countervailing
factors made its sentence appropriate. Seneca does not show the sentence
failed to “account for a factor that should have received significant weight”.
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Even if our court
agreed with Seneca that the court should have given greater weight to
mitigating factors, this “is not a sufficient ground for reversal”. United States
v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). Nor was it error for the court to
“rely upon factors already incorporated by the Guidelines to support a non-
Guidelines sentence”. United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir.
2008).
AFFIRMED.
3