USA v. Jesus Martinez-Contreras, No. 17-40345 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-40345 Document: 00514311591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-40345 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 18, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESUS FABIAN MARTINEZ-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16-CR-604-1 Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Fabian Martinez-Contreras pled guilty to being found in the United States following a deportation that occurred subsequent to a felony conviction. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s assessment of the 10level enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) (2016), which was based on a prior state felony offense. Martinez-Contreras argues that the enhancement was erroneously applied because, before his first removal order, he received 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 17-40345 Document: 00514311591 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2018 No. 17-40345 only a probationary term for the state felony offense and that the prison sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation could not be used to assess the § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) enhancement because it was imposed after his first removal order. We review the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Fernandez, 770 F.3d 340, 342 (5th Cir. 2014). Pursuant to United States v. Franco-Galvan, 864 F.3d 338, 340-43 (5th Cir. 2017), which issued after Martinez-Contreras was sentenced, application of the § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) enhancement constitutes error. The Government has not met its burden of showing harmless error. See United States v. Martinez-Romero, 817 F.3d 917, 924 (5th Cir. 2016). Although the district court was aware of both sentencing ranges, the court never explained that it would impose the same 48-month prison term either way. See United States v. Guzman-Rendon, 864 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 2017 WL 4883172 (Dec. 4, 2017) (No. 17-6519). Rather, the court used the incorrect range as the starting point for its discussion of the various 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors warranting deviation from that range. See MolinaMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016). Further, the court’s comments at sentencing do not make clear that its sentencing decision was based on factors independent of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327, 338 (5th Cir. 2016). We VACATE the judgment and REMAND to the district court for resentencing. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
