United States v. Palacios, No. 13-40153 (5th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to reentry of a deported alien. The government withheld an additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b) for pretrial acceptance of responsibility solely because defendant refused to waive his right to appeal. Amendment 755 to the Sentencing Guidelines became effective after defendant was sentenced but while this appeal was pending. Amendment 755 provides that the government should not withhold a section 3E1.1(b) motion based on interests not identified in section 3E1.1, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive his right to appeal. Concluding that the amended Guidelines applied to this case, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Download PDF
Case: 13-40153 Document: 00512638264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-40153 FILED May 21, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee v. MARTIN VILLEGAS PALACIOS, also known as Martin Villegas, Defendant Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendant Appellant Martin Villegas Palacios ( Villegas Palacios ) challenges the sentence he received after he pled guilty to reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. At sentencing, the government withheld an additional one-level reduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( U.S.S.G. ) § 3E1.1(b) for pretrial acceptance of responsibility solely because Villegas Palacios refused to waive his right to appeal. Villegas Palacios objected to his sentence, preserving error for appeal; however, the district court rejected his argument and sentenced him without the one-level reduction. He timely appealed. Amendment 775 to the U.S.S.G. became effective November 1, 2013, after Villegas Palacios was sentenced but while this appeal was pending. Case: 13-40153 Document: 00512638264 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 No. 13-40153 Amendment 775 provides: The government should not withhold [a § 3E1.1(b)] motion based on interests not identified in § 3E1.1, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive his or her right to appeal. U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amend. 775, at p. 43 (2013); accord U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.6. After Amendment 775 became effective, the United States in this case conceded error. The amended Guidelines apply to this case. See United States v. Anderson, 5 F.3d 795, 802 (5th Cir. 1993) ( Amendments to the guidelines and their commentary intended only to clarify, rather than effect substantive changes, may be considered even if not effective at the time of the commission of the offense or at the time of sentencing. (emphasis omitted)). Therefore, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing. 1 In rejecting Villegas Palacios s objection at sentencing, the district court relied on our decision in United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374 (2008). 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a)(1). 1 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.