USA v. Jose Pena-Medrano, No. 12-41221 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 20, 2013.
Download PDF
Case: 12-41221 Document: 00512646940 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 12-41221 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 30, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, versus JOSE AMADO PENA-MEDRANO, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-213-1 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-41221 Document: 00512646940 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 No. 12-41221 We granted appellant Jose Pena-Medrano s motion for summary disposition and affirmed, United States v. Ramirez-Mata, 539 F. App x 348 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), because Pena-Medrano s challenge to the denial of an additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) was foreclosed by United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374, 377-78 (5th Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General. Garcia v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1539 (2014). Amendment 775 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which became effective November 1, 2013, after the decision by this court, provides that the government should not withhold the additional one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b) based on interests not identified in the guideline, such as whether the defendant agreed to waive the right to appeal. U.S.S.G. Manual, Supp. to App. C, Amendment 775, at 43 46 (2013). In United States v. Villegas Palacios, No. 13-40153, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9493, at *2 (5th Cir. May 21, 2014) (per curiam), we applied Amendment 775 to a case on direct appeal in which the error was preserved and the government conceded error. The panel announced that the other judges on the Court have reviewed this opinion, and all active judges have assented. The Court en banc therefore concludes Newson to the extent it may constrain us from applying Amendment 775 to cases pending on direct appeal under our rule of orderliness is abrogated in light of Amendment 775. Id. n.1. In light of the Supreme Court s order and Villegas Palacios, the judgment is VACATED and REMANDED 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.
