UNITED STATES v. DELGADILLO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-05-12No. No. 20-50862

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the 46-month sentence, holding that a properly calculated within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and that the appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion warranting reversal.

Amber Elise Delgadillo pleaded guilty to importing and possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced her to 46 months in prison, which fell at the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Delgadillo challenged her sentence as substantively unreasonable, arguing that the district court overemphasized the Guidelines range and failed to properly weigh the statutory sentencing factors.

The appellate court rejected Delgadillo's challenge, explaining that sentences falling within the Guidelines range are presumed reasonable under appellate review standards. Although the court acknowledged that the Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, a properly calculated within-Guidelines sentence carries a presumption of reasonableness that can only be overcome through an abuse-of-discretion showing. The court found that the district court had considered Delgadillo's mitigating circumstances and the statutory factors before declining to impose a downward variance, and Delgadillo's request to reweigh those factors on appeal was inconsistent with the presumption of reasonableness.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal
Standard of review for substantive reasonableness of sentences under Gall
Whether district court properly weighed statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

Procedural posture

Delgadillo appealed her within-Guidelines sentence of 46 months, challenging its substantive reasonableness based on claims of mitigating circumstances and improper weighting of sentencing factors.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Amber Elise Delgadillo pleaded guilty to: one count of importing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(2)(H); and one count of possession, with intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). She received, inter alia, a sentence of 46-months’ imprisonment (the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range). Delgadillo contends her within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable, claiming the district court: relied too heavily on the sentencing range, which overstated the seriousness of her offense; and failed to give appropriate weight to the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A properly calculated sentence within the Guidelines range, as in this instance, is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); see, e.g., United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting the presumption of reasonableness applies to within-Guidelines sentences “even if the applicable Guideline is not empirically based”).

In maintaining her within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable, Delgadillo relies upon mitigating circumstances claimed relevant to the offense and her personal characteristics. At sentencing, the court considered her claims for mitigation and assessed the § 3553(a) factors, concluding her case did not warrant a downward variance from the Guidelines sentencing range. Delgadillos contention amounts to a request for this court to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which is contrary to the above-referenced presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences. See United States v. Martinez, 921 F.3d 452, 483 (5th Cir. 2019).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.