Background
Jesus Felipe Hernandez Rangel pleaded guilty to conspiring to transport aliens within the United States in a manner that placed a person’s life in jeopardy. The district court imposed an 87-month prison sentence.
On appeal, Hernandez Rangel challenged two four-level enhancements under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: one because a handgun was brandished during the offense and another because an unaccompanied minor was among the people transported. He had preserved his objection to the firearm enhancement, but not his objection to the unaccompanied-minor enhancement, which the Fifth Circuit therefore reviewed only for plain error.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence. It held that the factual statements in the presentence report had sufficient indicia of reliability and that the district court was entitled to rely on them because Hernandez Rangel did not rebut them.
Based on those unrebutted facts and the relevant-conduct rules, the court concluded that Hernandez Rangel failed to show clear error in the application of either the brandished-firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5)(B) or the unaccompanied-minor enhancement under § 2L1.1(b)(4). The latter challenge also failed under the applicable plain-error review.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may rely on sufficiently reliable facts in a presentence report when the defendant does not rebut them.
- The Fifth Circuit upheld separate four-level enhancements for a brandished handgun and the transportation of an unaccompanied minor.
- A sentencing objection not raised in the district court is reviewed only for plain error on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the importance of presenting evidence to contest factual assertions in a presentence report and preserving each Guidelines objection in the district court. Unrebutted report findings can support substantial offense-level increases, while an unpreserved objection faces the more demanding plain-error standard on appeal.