Background
Jose Alberto Resendez-Hernandez pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States and aiding and abetting the assault of correctional officers. The district court imposed respective prison terms of 24 months and 48 months, to run consecutively.
In the consolidated appeal, Resendez-Hernandez argued that his assault plea was unknowing and involuntary because the sentencing court used facts beyond those alleged in the indictment or admitted by him to increase his advisory Guidelines range. He also challenged findings concerning the use of a dangerous weapon and the officers’ injuries.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit dismissed the challenge to Resendez-Hernandez’s guilty plea. His notice of appeal expressly limited the appeal to his “Sentence Only,” thereby abandoning any challenge to his conviction despite the liberal construction ordinarily given to notices of appeal.
The court rejected both sentencing arguments. Resendez-Hernandez was accountable for his codefendants’ reasonably foreseeable conduct, and a sock containing a hard object qualified as a dangerous weapon when swung at someone’s head. The district court also properly applied a four-level increase because the officers’ injuries fell between “bodily injury” and “serious bodily injury”: one officer needed stitches for a head laceration, and another was kicked and punched until his face became red and swollen. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentences.
Key Takeaways
- A notice of appeal expressly limited to the sentence waives a challenge to the underlying conviction or guilty plea.
- A defendant may be held responsible under the Guidelines for reasonably foreseeable conduct by codefendants, including their use of a dangerous weapon.
- Injuries falling between bodily injury and serious bodily injury can support the four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(3)(D).
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of drafting a notice of appeal broadly enough to preserve every intended issue. A defendant who designates only the sentence may lose the ability to challenge the plea or conviction.
It also illustrates the fact-specific breadth of the Guidelines’ dangerous-weapon and injury provisions: an ordinary object may become a dangerous weapon based on how it is used, and injuries need not meet the definition of serious bodily injury to justify an increase greater than the one applicable to bodily injury alone.