United States v. Segura

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 3, 2023
• Docket: 23-20027
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-20027 Document: 00516955990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 23-20027 FILED November 3, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Rafael Romero Segura,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-15-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The government appeals the imposition of concurrent sentences on Rafael Segura’s underlying conviction of discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and another federal sentence imposed in a different case for illegal reentry. The government asserts that consecutive sentences are statutorily mandated

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-20027 Document: 00516955990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2023

No. 23-20027

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(iii). The government preserved this argument in the district court; thus, we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Reyes-Lugo, 238 F.3d 305, 307–08 (5th Cir. 2001). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evi- dence.” United States v. Castillo, 430 F.3d 230, 238 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review questions of statutory con- struction or interpretation de novo. United States v. Gomez, 960 F.3d 173, 176– 77 (5th Cir. 2020). The firearms conviction was subject to a ten-year statutory minimum. See § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Under the plain language of § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), that sentence is to be consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, federal or state, and the district court lacked discretion, under 18 U.S.C. § 3584, to im- pose concurrent sentences. See United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 6, 11 (1997); see also Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453, 455 (2023); United States v. Krumnow, 476 F.3d 294, 298 (5th Cir. 2007). “Given the straightforward statutory command” of a consecutive sentence, Gonzales, 520 U.S. at 6, the court erred by ordering that Segura’s § 924(c) sentence run concurrently with the illegal-reentry sentence, see id. at 6, 11; see also Krumnow, 476 F.3d at 298. For the foregoing reasons, Segura’s conviction is AFFIRMED, his sentence is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for resentencing.