United States v. Gonzales, No. 10-20238 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant challenged his sentence after conviction for conspiring to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a). At issue was whether the district court erred in applying United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. 2X1.1, covering conspiracies, in calculating appellant's Guidelines range. The court affirmed the sentence and held that the trial court did not err in applying section 2X1.1 where it applied to extortion conspiracies under the Hobbs Act in light of United States v. Villafranca.
Download PDF
Case: 10-20238 Document: 00511490607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED May 26, 2011 No. 10-20238 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. ISRAEL GONZALES, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Israel Gonzales challenges his sentence after conviction for conspiring to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). We AFFIRM. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in applying Sentencing Guideline § 2X1.1, covering conspiracies, in calculating Gonzales s Guideline range. Gonzales contends the district court should have applied § 2B3.1, a robbery guideline, instead. Applying § 2X1.1 led to an offense level of 23, which carries a sentence of 46-57 months. Gonzales was sentenced to 46 months, the bottom of that range. Case: 10-20238 Document: 00511490607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2011 No. 10-20238 At the outset, we must resolve whether Gonzales adequately preserved his objection to the use of § 2X1.1. We typically review a district court s interpretation or application of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). However, where an appellant fails to preserve the issue in the district court, this court s review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Alvarado-Santilano, 434 F.3d 794, 795 (5th Cir. 2005). The government urges us to apply plain error review because Gonzales s argument was made for the first time on appeal. We disagree. To preserve error, an objection must be sufficiently specific to alert the district court to the nature of the alleged error and to provide an opportunity for correction. United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). Exacting precision is not required. Id. at 272-73. Here, the probation officer calculated Gonzales s offense level pursuant to § 2B3.1, without mention of § 2X1.1. Gonzales objected to the one-level adjustment for the amount of loss on the ground that only actual loss is counted under § 2B3.1. In other words, Gonzales did not argue explicitly that § 2B3.1 applied, but his argument necessarily required the application of § 2B3.1. At the sentencing hearing, Gonzales reiterated this objection. The government responded, I would ask the Court to find that 2X1.1 applies and directs us to 2B3.1. The court then explicitly overruled Gonzales s objection. We believe that was sufficient for Gonzales to preserve this issue for de novo review. Even reviewing de novo, however, we find no error in the trial court s decision to apply § 2X1.1. This circuit has held already in United States v. Villafranca, 260 F.3d 374, 381 (5th Cir. 2001), that § 2X1.1 applies to extortion conspiracies under the Hobbs Act. One of our sister circuits held in United States v. Amato, 46 F.3d 1255, 1259-63 (2d Cir. 1995), that § 2X1.1 applies to Hobbs Act robbery conspiracies, and other circuits, albeit in unpublished 2 Case: 10-20238 Document: 00511490607 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2011 No. 10-20238 opinions, have adopted that same approach. See, e.g., United States v. Mershon, 322 F. App'x. 232, 236 (3d Cir. 2009); United States v. Joost, No. 95-2031, 1996 WL 480215, *11-12 (1st Cir. Aug. 7, 1996). Although the Eleventh Circuit has declined to apply § 2X1.1 to conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act, it did so relying partly on a Second Circuit decision that was later overruled in Amato. See United States v. Thomas, 8 F.3d 1552, 1564-65 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Skowronski, 968 F.2d 242, 249-50 (2d Cir. 1992)). The Eleventh Circuit s view is an outlier and arguably contrary to our position in Villafranca. We therefore conclude that the trial court correctly applied § 2X1.1 in calculating Gonzales s sentence. The sentence is AFFIRMED. 3
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.
