Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose GARCIA-LIZANAGA, also known as Chepe, Defendant-Appellant
Jose Garcia-Lizanaga appeals the 400-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, he argues that the district court committed plain error by not imposing a sentence below his calculated guidelines range of 360 months to life in prison.
Garcia-Lizanaga did not object to his sentence in the district court. Thus, review is for plain error only. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). The record reveals that the district court did not make an arithmetic error during sentencing but imposed a sentence within the guidelines range calculated after granting the Government’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion for a downward departure. Garcia-Lizanaga cannot rely on the clerical error in the Statement of Reasons (SOR), which incorrectly notes that the pre-departure guidelines range of imprisonment was 360 months to life, rather than life. The SOR serves a “record-keeping function” and does not provide any “procedural safeguard[s]” to a defendant. United States v. Shakbazyan, 841 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, any clerical error in the SOR is harmless, and Garcia-Lizanaga cannot now rely on such an error to claim that the district court committed an arithmetic error by not downwardly departing. See id.
The case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the SOR. See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-10325
Decided: April 08, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)