United States v. Menchaca

Case: 21-50748 Document: 00516246020 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 21, 2022
No. 21-50748
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jose Menchaca,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-78-2
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Menchaca challenges his sentence for conspiring to transport
illegal aliens and transporting illegal aliens for financial gain. The district
court applied a sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6)
after it determined that Menchaca created a substantial risk of death or
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50748 Document: 00516246020 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-50748
serious bodily injury to the aliens he transported. Menchaca contends that
the circumstances of his offense do not warrant the enhancement.
We review a district court’s interpretation and application of the
Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States
v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v.
Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2011). The vehicle at issue was
overcrowded with 15 aliens (one driver and 14 passengers), with multiple
individuals lying on top of each other, and was visibly carrying a lot of weight. 1
As the commentary to § 2L1.1 provides “carrying substantially more
passengers than the rated capacity of a motor vehicle,” § 2L1.1, comment.
(n.3), as an example of reckless conduct that would support such an
enhancement, the district court did not clearly err when it applied the §
2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement on these facts, see Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d at
207; Rodriguez, 630 F.3d at 380.
AFFIRMED.
1
In his brief to this court, Menchaca claims he was unaware of the number of
passengers who would be in the suburban. This argument was not raised in the district
court, and he failed to properly brief before this court any claim of plain error, so we do not
consider this argument. See United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006)
(noting that inadequately briefed arguments are deemed abandoned).
2