USA v. Villegas, No. 22-50150 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-50150 Document: 00516634273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50150 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED February 3, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Victor Gerardo Villegas, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:19-CR-2126-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Victor Gerardo Villegas appeals his sentence following a jury trial conviction for one count of conspiring to import 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. He argues that the district court penalized him for exercising his right to go to trial. Villegas relies on statements made by the district court at _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-50150 Document: 00516634273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2023 No. 22-50150 the sentencing hearing and the disparity between his sentence and those received by his co-conspirators. Villegas argues this issue is subject to de novo review in light of United States v. Molina, No. 20-11232, 2022 WL 3971588 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2022), cert. denied, No. 22-6209, 2023 WL 124369 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2023). The Government acknowledges Molina but insists plain error review applies because Villegas failed to object to the purported error in the district court. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009). There is no need to determine the appropriate standard of review because Villegas’s claim fails even under the more lenient standard of review. We explain. The Sixth Amendment provides in part that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. “To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978). Accordingly, “a defendant cannot be punished by a more severe sentence because he unsuccessfully exercises his constitutional right to stand trial.” United States v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 1338 (5th Cir. 1991). Villegas fails to show that the district court factored Villegas’s decision not to plead guilty into its sentencing decision, let alone that it punished Villegas more severely than it otherwise would have because he went to trial. See Gozes-Wagner, 977 F.3d at 334–37. Furthermore, Villegas fails to identify any similarly situated co-conspirator whose sentence is appropriate to compare to Villegas’s sentence for purposes of determining whether Villegas was punished more severely because he went to trial. See id. at 36–37. Villegas thus has failed to show that the district court imposed an unconstitutional trial penalty on him at sentencing and has failed to show any abuse of discretion. 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.
