United States v. Perez-Aguilar

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 10, 2025
• Docket: 24-20315
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-20315 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-20315 Summary Calendar FILED April 10, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Alvaro Higinio Perez-Aguilar,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CR-94-1 ______________________________

Before Richman, Douglas, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Alvaro Higinio Perez-Aguilar was sentenced to seventy-two months of imprisonment after pleading guilty to reentering the United States illegally, an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in declining to grant him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-20315 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2025

No. 24-20315

A district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is ordinarily “reviewed with particular deference.” United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1017 (5th Cir. 2019). This court will affirm the denial “unless it is ‘without foundation, a standard of review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)). Here, however, Perez-Aguilar’s objection did not preserve the specific argument he raises—that the district court improperly relied on his criminal history. See United States v. Nesmith, 866 F.3d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we review under the familiar plain error standard. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Perez-Aguilar’s reliance on United States v. Diaz, 39 F.3d 568, 571 (5th Cir. 1994), is misplaced because the district court here did not rely on the “bare fact” of Perez-Aguilar’s convictions. The district court reasonably could have concluded that, in light of Perez-Aguilar’s history and his conduct in this case, his acceptance of responsibility did not represent sincere contrition. See United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 648 (5th Cir. 2003). Even under the ordinary standard of review, the district court’s decision was not “without foundation.” Lord, 915 F.3d at 1020. It was not clearly or obviously so. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. AFFIRMED.