United States v. Rutilo Medina Hernandez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2026
• Docket: 25-12991
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12991 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12991 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

RUTILO MEDINA HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cr-00442-AMM-JHE-1 ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Rutilo Medina Hernandez appeals his total sentence of 156 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to dis- USCA11 Case: 25-12991 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12991

tribute, and to distribute, methamphetamine and cocaine, distribu- tion of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute co- caine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, pos- session of a firearm as an alien illegally in the United States, posses- sion of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and mul- tiple counts of use of a communication facility to commit a drug trafficking crime. He argues that the district court orally imposed a sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment as to his convictions for using a communication facility to commit a drug trafficking crime, which exceeded the statutory maximum sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). In response, the govern- ment moves for summary affirmance, arguing that the court cor- rected its initial oral pronouncement and clarified that the sentence was 48 months as to these counts. It further argues that, even if the court’s oral pronouncement was defective, the court’s written judgment controls, and the written judgment lawfully sentenced Hernandez to 48 months’ imprisonment as to these counts. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where . . . the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Ordinarily, we review the legality of a criminal sentence de novo. United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 2002). USCA11 Case: 25-12991 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-12991 Opinion of the Court 3

Illegal sentences include those that exceed the statutory maximum. United States v. Cobbs, 967 F.2d 1555, 1557–58 (11th Cir. 1992). But when a defendant failed to argue in the district court that his sen- tence exceeded the statutory maximum, we review such a chal- lenge on appeal for plain error. United States v. Smith, 532 F.3d 1125, 1129 (11th Cir. 2008). “To prevail under the plain error standard, an appellant must show: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; (3) it affected his substantial rights; and (4) it seriously af- fected the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 822 (11th Cir. 2014). A sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum constitutes plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918, 930 (11th Cir. 2009). Normally, “[w]here there is a discrepancy between the orally imposed sentence and the written order of judgment and committal, the oral sentence controls.” United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975, 977 (11th Cir. 1990). However, there is a longstanding exception to this rule “when an oral pronouncement is contrary to law.” United States v. Joseph, 743 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 2014). When an oral pronouncement violates the plain language of a stat- ute, for example, a lawful written judgment will control over the oral pronouncement. See id. at 1353–54, 1356. It is “unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to use any communication facility in committing or in causing or fa- cilitating the commission of” a drug trafficking crime. 21 U.S.C. USCA11 Case: 25-12991 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12991

§ 843(b). A defendant who commits such an offense “shall be sen- tenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 4 years.” Id. § 843(d)(1). Here, the government is clearly right as a matter of law that Hernandez’s sentence as to his convictions for using a communica- tion facility to commit a drug trafficking crime did not exceed the statutory maximum because the district court orally clarified that Hernandez’s sentence as to these counts should be 48 months ra- ther than the 96-month term from its initial oral pronouncement. Moreover, even if the district court had not corrected its initial oral pronouncement, the terms of the written final judgment—which imposed a 48-month sentence as to these convictions—would con- trol because the initial oral pronouncement was contrary to law. Accordingly, because the government’s position is clearly right as a matter of law, we GRANT its motion for summary affir- mance. See Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162.

AFFIRMED.