United States v. William Vivar-Lopez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 20, 2019
• Docket: 19-40351
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-40351 Document: 00515246134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 19-40351 December 20, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM GEOVANI VIVAR-LOPEZ,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 1:18-CR-713-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

William Vivar-Lopez appeals his 30-month, below-guidelines sentence for illegal reentry. He contends that the district court erred by considering

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-40351 Document: 00515246134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2019

No. 19-40351

Application Note 3 of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which indicates that if a defendant re- ceives offense-level enhancements for prior convictions under § 2L1.2(b), those prior convictions may garner criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. Vivar-Lopez urges that, in light of Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), the court should have given no deference to the commentary because the language of § 2L1.2 is unambiguous. In addition, Vivar-Lopez maintains that because § 2L1.2 is the guideline that specifically addresses illegal-reentry offenses, the court should not have applied criminal history points per § 4A1.1 for offenses that resulted in offense level enhancements under § 2L1.2(b).

As Vivar-Lopez concedes, we review for plain error, so he must show, as the first requirement, a forfeited error that is clear or obvious. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Kisor addressed the continuing via- bility of deference to an agency’s interpretations of its own regulations under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). The Court in Kisor did not overrule Auer deference but merely restated the limitations on applying deference to an agency’s interpretations. Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2415−16, 2423. Kisor did not address the Sentencing Guidelines or the caselaw holding that the commen- tary to the Guidelines is authoritative unless it violates federal law or the Con- stitution, it is inconsistent with the Guideline being interpreted, or it consti- tutes a plainly erroneous reading of the Guideline. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993).

Because there is no caselaw from the Supreme Court or this court ad- dressing the effect of Kisor on the Sentencing Guidelines in general or on Appli- cation Note 3 of § 2L1.2 in particular, there is no clear or obvious error. See United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc); United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED.