USA v. Eduardo Hernandez-Gutierrez, No. 11-10821 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-10821 Document: 00511866200 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-10821 Summary Calendar May 24, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. EDUARDO HERNANDEZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-40-1 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eduardo Hernandez-Gutierrez pleaded guilty to a single count of illegal reentry after deportation. The presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated a Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months imprisonment; however, as suggested in the PSR, the district court departed upward pursuant to Guideline § 4A1.3, based on the inadequacy of the criminal-history category, to a sentence of 45months imprisonment. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10821 Document: 00511866200 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2012 No. 11-10821 Hernandez contends the district court procedurally erred in departing upward because: it did not consider each intermediate step in the process before selecting his sentence; and, to determine his sentence, it used the reasonableness standard employed by appellate courts. Because Hernandez failed to preserve either of these issues in district court, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish reversible plain error, Hernandez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights. E.g., Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If such showing is made, our court retains the discretion to correct the error and generally will do so only if the reversible plain error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings . Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As our court has stated, it is well settled that a district court does not need to go through a ritualistic exercise in which it mechanically discusses each criminal history category it rejects en route to the category that it selects, and that the court s reasons for rejecting intermediate categories will be quite apparent in its stated reasons for departure . United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 348 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). At sentencing, the district court stated that it determined the extent of the departure by moving incrementally through the Guidelines sentencing table as required by § 4A1.3(a)(4). In addition, the district court s adoption of the PSR and its statements at sentencing explain that it found an upward departure was warranted and the intermediate categories and levels were insufficient, because of Hernandez continued disregard of immigration procedures and his continuing criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(2)(C). The district court s explanation for the departure implicitly established the rationale for rejecting the intervening levels. See Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d at 348 n.2. Therefore, Hernandez has not shown error. 2 Case: 11-10821 Document: 00511866200 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2012 No. 11-10821 Hernandez also contends the district court erred by using an appellate reasonableness standard in determining his sentence; he maintains the court was required instead to impose a sentence that was sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (including, inter alia, nature of offense, history of defendant, and need for sentence imposed to protect the public and promote respect for law). It is correct that, at sentencing, the district court stated it had concluded the sentence was reasonable . However, the court also stated that the sentence was based on both the advisory Guidelines and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. In particular, immediately before referring to the sentence as reasonable , the district court stated that the sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the § 3553(a) sentencing objectives. The district court s subsequent conclusion that the sentence also was reasonable was not error. 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.
