USA v. Johnny Garcia-Esparza


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50539 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: JLD , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 08/01/2017; denying motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8299782-2] [16-50539]

Download PDF
Case: 16-50539 Document: 00514067831 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-50539 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 11, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHNNY GARCIA-ESPARZA, also known as Gira, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-425-5 Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Johnny Garcia-Esparza, federal prisoner # 43813-080, pleaded guilty to various drug, firearm, money laundering, and conspiracy offenses. The presentence report calculated a guidelines range of 360 months to life with a statutory minimum of 420 months, and the district court sentenced him to 720 months of imprisonment. Garcia-Esparza later filed a motion to reduce his sentence in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-50539 Document: 00514067831 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2017 No. 16-50539 retroactively decreased base offense levels for possession of various quantities of narcotics. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court determined that Garcia-Esparza was ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction because his guidelines range was based on his status as a career offender, not drug quantity. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009). Garcia-Esparza contends that the district court erred in finding that his sentence was based on the career offender guideline, thus making him ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). He further argues that the career offender enhancement, among others, was wrongly applied to his sentence initially. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a brief. Although the presentence report (PSR) determined Garcia-Esparza’s offense level of 43 based on drug quantity, which would have resulted in a term of life, the PSR also applied the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b), (c)(3), to determine that the guidelines range was 360 months to life, increased to 420 months to life with a mandatory consecutive 60-month sentence. That is the range that the district court adopted. Further, applying Amendment 782 to retroactively reduce his drug offense level from 43 to 41 also results in a guidelines range of 420 months to life after application of the 60-month consecutive sentence. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s.; § 2K2.4(b). Consequently, the amendment does not have the effect of lowering Garcia-Esparza’s guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying § 3582(c)(2) relief. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1995). To the extent GarciaEsparza alleges errors in the initial calculation of his guidelines range, he may not do so under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009). 2 Case: 16-50539 Document: 00514067831 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/11/2017 No. 16-50539 Although Garcia-Esparza’s position is without merit, summary affirmance is not appropriate given the inconsistencies in the record regarding how Garcia-Esparza’s range was determined. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). However, further briefing is not required. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED, and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?