United States v. Oscar Turcios-Rivera , 583 F. App'x 375 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-40111      Document: 00512817096         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/28/2014
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-40111
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 28, 2014
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    OSCAR TURCIOS-RIVERA,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 2:13-CR-884-1
    Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Oscar Turcios-Rivera pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry
    following deportation.        The presentence report (PSR) recommended an
    advisory guidelines range of 27 to 33 months of imprisonment. In imposing a
    45-month term of imprisonment after considering the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    factors, the district court noted that Turcios-Rivera’s 1991 conviction for lewd
    and lascivious acts was not counted in the criminal history score, that he had
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40111      Document: 00512817096         Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/28/2014
    No. 14-40111
    reentered the United States within 5 months of being deported following a 24-
    month sentence for illegal reentry, and that he had “other criminal conduct”
    against his stepson.
    On appeal, Turcios-Rivera challenges the above guidelines sentence as
    substantively unreasonable because the district court relied on an improper
    factor, his 2004 arrest, and made an error in judgment in balancing the
    § 3553(a) sentencing factors because it overvalued the significance of his 1991
    conviction. We review sentences for substantive reasonableness under an
    abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007);
    United States v. Smith, 
    440 F.3d 704
    , 708 (5th Cir. 2006).
    With respect to the 2004 arrest, Turcios-Rivera did not object to the PSR
    containing information about the assault in question. 1 To the contrary, when
    asked by the district court if there were “any mistakes anywhere in this
    report,” he said “No, everything’s perfect, Your Honor.”               At sentencing, a
    district court may not consider a bare arrest record contained in a PSR. United
    States v. Harris, 
    702 F.3d 226
    , 229 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 
    133 S. Ct. 1845
    (2013). However, in the absence of any indication that the information is not
    reliable, the court can consider specific information provided in the PSR. See
    Harris, 702 F.3d at 230-31 & n.1. Here, the PSR contained specific information
    from the offense report that Turcios-Rivera struck his stepson “in the head and
    face several times leaving cuts” on his face. It thus bore a sufficient indicia of
    reliability to be considered unless disputed. See id. On this record, the district
    court did not err in considering the 2004 arrest.
    1   Turcios-Rivera objected to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence in the
    district court. However, he did not raise the alleged improper consideration of his arrest
    record, which we have treated as a procedural error, see Harris, 702 F.3d at 229, in the
    district court. Under our precedent, then, plain error review would be the appropriate
    standard. United States v. Jones, 
    489 F.3d 679
    , 681 (5th Cir. 2007). Because we conclude
    that Turcios-Rivera has not shown reversible error even if the error were preserved, we need
    not address the standard of review further.
    2
    Case: 14-40111     Document: 00512817096     Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/28/2014
    No. 14-40111
    Turcios-Rivera also argues that the district court gave undue weight to
    his 1991 conviction and is asking this court to reweigh the sentencing factors.
    The sentencing court is in the best position to find facts and judge their import.
    See Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    ; United States v. Scott, 
    654 F.3d 552
    , 555 (5th Cir.
    2011). The 45-month sentence, which was 12 months above the top of the
    sentencing guidelines range of 27 to 33 months of imprisonment, is not
    substantively unreasonable. See Smith, 
    440 F.3d at 708, 710
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-40111

Citation Numbers: 583 F. App'x 375

Filed Date: 10/28/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023