United States v. Valle Estrada

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 4, 2024
• Docket: 23-10497
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-10497 Document: 100-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2024

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

No. 23-10497 FILED June 4, 2024 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Omar Jorge Valle Estrada,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-447-2 ______________________________

Before Smith, Wiener, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Omar Jorge Valle Estrada appeals his 360-month sentence following a jury-trial conviction for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detecta- ble amount of methamphetamine and one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detec- table amount of methamphetamine.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10497 Document: 100-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2024

I. First, Estrada contends that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence by failing to explain its reasons adequately. But Estrada objected in the district court only to the length of the sentence and the imposition of a so-called “trial penalty.” In our circuit, objections to “the substance of the sentence” do not preserve objections to “the manner in which it was explained.” United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). So, his claim that the district court failed to explain its reasons is reviewed for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To prevail on plain error review, Estrada must identify (1) an error (2) that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. See id. If he satisfies those require- ments, we may, in our discretion, remedy the error if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even if we were to assume that the district court clearly or obviously erred, Estrada fails to show that any plain procedural error affected his sub- stantial rights. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364–65. He fails to raise any contention, and the record provides no indication, that a more detailed explanation would have resulted in a lesser sentence. On this record, Estrada has failed to show plain error.

II. Second, Estrada avers that the district court imposed a harsher sen- tence than it otherwise would have because he exercised his right to trial. He asserts that this trial penalty is evident when comparing his pre-trial sentenc- ing exposure with his post-trial sentencing exposure. He preserved that claim, so our review is de novo. See United States v. Gozes-Wagner, 977 F.3d Case: 23-10497 Document: 100-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2024

323, 335 n.7 (5th Cir. 2020). Estrada does not show, and the record does not reflect, that the dis- trict court made any explicit statements indicating that it was punishing him more severely because he invoked his right to trial. See United States v. Gozes- Wagner, 977 F.3d 323, 337 (5th Cir. 2020). Nor does he establish that he was similarly situated to a co-conspirator. See id. at 336–37. Instead, he avers that the disparity between his pre-trial sentencing exposure and his ultimate sen- tence shows that the district court imposed a trial penalty. But Estrada’s post-trial position was not like his pre-trial position. During plea negotiations, it appears that Estrada’s sentencing exposure was based in part on his willingness to accept responsibility and his providing sub- stantial assistance to the government. When sentencing him post-trial, the district court focused on his failure to accept responsibility and his obstruc- tion of justice during the proceedings. Thus, despite his contentions other- wise, those factors explain adequately why Estrada received a harsher sen- tence post-trial than if he had accepted the plea offer. On this record, Estrada has failed to show that the district court imposed an unconstitutional trial penalty at sentencing.

III. Lastly, Estrada contends that the government engaged in prosecu- torial vindictiveness by advocating a sentence that was substantially higher than the sentence endorsed during plea negotiations. Further, he avers that the government should have been estopped from requesting such a dispar- ately longer sentence. Because Estrada did not raise contentions of judicial estoppel or prosecutorial vindictiveness in the district court, such claims are reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Cluff, 857 F.3d 292, 301 (5th Cir. 2017). Case: 23-10497 Document: 100-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/04/2024

Estrada fails to establish that the government engaged in actual vin- dictiveness or that a presumption of vindictiveness should be applied to the government’s actions in the district court proceedings. See United States v. Saltzman, 537 F.3d 353, 359 (5th Cir. 2008). Estrada fails to cite any case from this court holding that a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness may be demonstrated by the government offering a reduced sentence during plea negotiations and then advocating a within-guideline sentence following the defendant’s exercise of his right to trial. Therefore, for purposes of plain- error review, Estrada has failed to demonstrate prosecutorial vindictiveness that is clear or obvious considering existing law. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. In as much as Estrada asserts that the government should have been judicially estopped at sentencing, his contention lacks merit. Judicial estop- pel applies when “the estopped party’s position [is] clearly inconsistent with its previous one” and “that party [has] convinced the court to accept that previous position.” Gabarick v. Laurin Mar. (Am.) Inc., 753 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Estrada fails to show that the government’s endorsement of a sen- tence of 10 to 12 years of imprisonment during plea negotiations was clearly inconsistent with its request for a within-guidelines sentence of 360 to 365 months at sentencing, especially considering the change in circumstances between its endorsement of those different sentences. In short, he fails to show that the district court clearly or obviously erred in failing to estop the government at sentencing.

* * * * For the reasons explained, the judgment is AFFIRMED.