United States v. Carmelo Diaz-Gopar

Court Case Details
  • Case Name: United States v. Carmelo Diaz-Gopar
  • Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • Filed: June 04, 2015
  • Precedential Status: Unpublished
  • Docket #: 14-40722
  • Nature: direct criminal
Court Case Opinion

Case: 14-40722 Document: 00513066935 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 14-40722

FILED

Summary Calendar

June 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARMELO DIAZ-GOPAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-631

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

*

Defendant-Appellant Carmelo Diaz-Gopar pleaded guilty to one count of

conspiring to transport aliens within the United States and conspiring to
harbor aliens within this country for private financial gain resulting in the
death of at least one person. He appeals his non-guidelines sentence of 121
months, insisting that the district court erred by imposing a sentencing
adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4. We affirm.

Pursuant to 5

C

.

R.

47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

*

TH

IR

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5

TH

C

.

R. 47.5.4.

IR

Case: 14-40722 Document: 00513066935 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2015

No. 14-40722

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal

determinations regarding the application of the sentencing guidelines de novo.
United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Even
when a district court fails to consider the correct guideline sentencing range,
such an error may be harmless “if the proponent of the sentence convincingly
demonstrates both (1) that the district court would have imposed the same
sentence had it not made the error, and (2) that it would have done so for the
same reasons it gave at the prior sentencing.” United States v. Ibarra-Luna,
628 F.3d 712, 714 (5th Cir. 2010).

We need not decide whether the district court erred in its guidelines

calculations, because review of the record convinces us that any error arising
from assessment of the § 3B1.4 adjustment was harmless. The district court
was principally concerned with, and its choice of sentence principally driven
by, the loss of life and disregard for human dignity involved in the instant
offense. The district court’s extensive remarks at sentencing convince us that,
even if a guidelines calculation error occurred, then the district court would
have imposed the same sentence. See Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d at 714. The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2