United States of America v. Espinoza-Melendez
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER, entered. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the sentence imposed in 1:19-PO-4293 is AFFIRMED. (Signed by Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr) Parties notified.(mperez, 1)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 05, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS.
FELIX PEDRO ESPINOZA-MELENDEZ
§
§
§
§
§
David J. Bradley, Clerk
MISCELLANEOUS ACTION
NO. 1:20-MC-104 (1:19-PO-4293)
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Felix Pedro Espinoza-Melendez appeals the sentence that the Magistrate
Judge imposed after revoking Espinoza’s probation. After considering the record in the case,
the recording of the sentencing proceeding, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, the Court
affirms the Magistrate Judge’s sentence.
I.
Procedural Background
In August 2019, Espinoza received a sentence of one-year unsupervised probation for
violating 8 U.S.C § 1325(a). The United States deported Espinoza to his home country of
Nicaragua after his release.
In November 2019, Espinoza was arrested in the United States and charged with several
misdemeanor offenses under Texas law, including Assault Causes Bodily Injury-Family
Violence. In January 2020, he was convicted of those offenses.
On January 8, 2020, Espinoza was remanded to federal custody. Two days later, he was
convicted of again violating 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) and sentenced to thirty days. (1:20-PO-00100,
Judgment, Doc. 3)
The state and federal convictions violated the terms of Espinoza’s probation in this
matter. On February 5, 2020, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing where Espinoza plead true to
committing the state offenses of Assault Causes Bodily Injury-Family Violence, Evading
Arrest/Detention, and Criminal Mischief, as well as the federal offense of Illegal Entry into the
1/4
United States. (Petition, Doc. 4; Judgment of Revocation, Doc. 8)1 After finding Espinoza guilty
of violating the conditions of his probation, the Magistrate Judge imposed a sentence of six
months confinement with credit for time served. (Judgment of Revocation, Doc. 8)
Espinoza timely appealed from that sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
58.
II.
Standard of Review
“Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 58(g)(2) governs appeals from a magistrate judge’s
order or judgment in the criminal context.” United States v. Brantley, 776 F. App'x 853, 854
(5th Cir. 2019). A defendant may appeal a magistrate judge's sentence to a district court judge
within 14 days of the judgment’s entry. FED. R. CRIM. P. 58(g)(2)(A). The district court’s review
of a “magistrate judge’s judgment is the same as in an appeal to the court of appeals from a
judgment entered by a district judge”. United States v. Hollingsworth, 783 F.3d 556, 558 (5th
Cir. 2015) (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 58(g)(2)(D)). “The defendant is not entitled to a trial de novo
by a district judge.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 58(g)(2)(D).
A sentence imposed after revocation of probation is reviewed under the “plainly
unreasonable” standard. United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 496 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted). “To evaluate whether a sentence is plainly unreasonable, [the] court must first ensure
that the [magistrate judge] committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to consider
the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
adequately explain the chosen sentence, including failing to explain a deviation from the
Guidelines range.” Id. “If the [magistrate judge’s] sentencing decision lacks procedural error,
[the] court next considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.” Id. “A
sentence is substantively unreasonable if it (1) does not account for a factor that should have
Espinoza suggests in his appeal that he pled true only as to the first allegation, which concerned the conviction for
Assault Causes Bodily Injury-Family Violence. (Brief in Support of Appeal, Doc. 3, 1) The recording of the proceeding
indicates that he pled true as to all the alleged violations, and the Government’s brief confirms as much.
(Government’s Response, Doc. 4, 2) The Court finds that Espinoza pled true as to all the alleged violations, but even
if Espinoza had pled true only as to the first allegation, the Court would still affirm the Magistrate Judge’s sentence.
1
2/4
received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3)
represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v.
Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotations omitted). The review is
highly deferential because “the sentencing court is in a better position to find facts and judge
their import under the § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular defendant.” United States
v. Hebert, 813 F.3d 551, 563 (5th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotations omitted).
“Implicit
consideration of the § 3553 factors is sufficient.” United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th
Cir. 1996)
III.
Analysis
Espinoza argues that the six-month sentence imposed by the Magistrate Judge “was
excessive and not based on the mitigating factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” (Defendant’s Brief in
Support of Appeal, Doc. 3, 2)
The record reflects otherwise. The Magistrate Judge explained that he was imposing a
six-month sentence because Espinoza not only came back to the United States illegally during
his term of probation, but committed additional offenses, including assault causing bodily
injury, while here. The Magistrate Judge’s explanation relies on one or more of the factors in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), such as the need to protect the public from future crimes of a defendant.
Although the Magistrate Judge did not expressly reference Section 3553(a), his explanation
implicitly stemmed from the factors in that provision.
As a result, the record reveals no
procedural errors.
The Court also finds that the six-month sentence is substantively reasonable and that the
Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion by imposing it. The record contains no indication
that the Magistrate Judge failed to account for a factor that should have received significant
weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error of
judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. On the contrary, the Magistrate Judge provided a
3/4
reasonable basis for the imposed sentence, which did not exceed the length of imprisonment
that the applicable law allows.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that the sentence imposed in 1:19-PO-4293 is AFFIRMED.
SIGNED this 5th day of March, 2020.
_________________________________
Fernando Rodriguez, Jr.
United States District Judge
4/4
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?