United States v. Arnoldo Martinez-Guerra

Case: 19-40387 Document: 00515602850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 15, 2020 No. 19-40387 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Arnoldo Martinez-Guerra, Defendant—Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:18-CR-304-1 Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Arnoldo Martinez-Guerra pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while in the country illegally, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A), 924(a)(2), and 2. The district court sentenced him to 97 months of imprisonment. Relying on Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), Martinez-Guerra * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-40387 Document: 00515602850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 No. 19-40387 argues that the factual basis was insufficient to support his guilty plea because it did not establish that he knew of his prohibited status at the time of the offense or that he knowingly possessed the firearm. Because Martinez-Guerra did not raise this objection in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Ortiz, 927 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 2019). On plain error review, a defendant must establish an error or defect that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and that affected his substantial rights. Id.; see also United States v. Hicks, 958 F.3d 399, 400 (5th Cir. 2020). Once those conditions have been met, this court has discretion to correct the forfeited error if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Ortiz, 927 F.3d at 872. The record in its entirety, including the presentence report (PSR) and rearraignment transcript, and “fairly drawn inferences from the evidence” show that when he possessed the firearm involved in the offense, Martinez- Guerra knew of his status as an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States and that he knowingly possessed the firearm. United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 317 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Hicks, 958 F.3d at 400-02. Martinez-Guerra served as a firearms straw purchasing recruiter and recruited seven other co-conspirators to purchase firearms on his behalf in exchange for financial compensation. The PSR provided that at least three of the recruited co-conspirators knew Martinez-Guerra was an undocumented alien, unlawfully present in the United States. Moreover, in summarizing an interview that government officials conducted with Martinez-Guerra, the PSR explained that Martinez-Guerra was “aware of the necessary documentation that was required to be filled out in order to purchase a firearm, noting that he was unable to purchase firearms himself because of his immigration status.” Once the firearms were purchased, Martinez-Guerra took possession of the firearms, occasionally stored the 2 Case: 19-40387 Document: 00515602850 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 No. 19-40387 firearms ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals