USA v. Julio Maldonado-Gonzalez, No. 19-40102 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-40102 Document: 00515104830 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-40102 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 4, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JULIO CESAR MALDONADO-GONZALEZ, also known as Burqueti, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-252-6 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Julio Cesar Maldonado-Gonzalez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the sentence imposed upon his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment. The district court granted Maldonado-Gonzalez’s § 2255 motion, vacated his sentence, and ordered resentencing. At the resentencing proceeding, the district court sentenced 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-40102 Document: 00515104830 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 No. 19-40102 Maldonado-Gonzalez within the guidelines range to 151 months of imprisonment. He appeals. Maldonado-Gonzalez argues that under Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011), the district court plainly erred in imposing his sentence by failing to indicate that it had considered evidence of his postsentencing rehabilitative efforts. As he acknowledges, his failure to object on this ground in the district court results in plain-error review. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To show the requisite plain error, Maldonado-Gonzalez must demonstrate a clear or obvious forfeited error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, this court “should exercise its discretion to correct the forfeited error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1905 (2018) (quoting Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1340 (2016)). Maldonado-Gonzalez has not shown that any error was clear or obvious because, though Pepper permits a district court to consider postsentencing rehabilitative conduct, it is not clear that Pepper mandates consideration of such conduct. See Pepper, 562 U.S. at 490; United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326–27 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 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.
