Robert Carlos Cerrillo pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After a prior remand for resentencing, the district court imposed a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Cerrillo appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly applied an enhanced sentencing guideline based on attempted second-degree murder and challenging the constitutionality of the federal statute itself.
The Fifth Circuit addressed two primary issues. First, regarding the sentencing enhancement, the court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that Cerrillo intended to kill the victim when he shot him. The court noted that Cerrillo had admitted to police that he aimed at the victim and fired a shot. Based on this admission, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in applying the cross-reference to the attempted murder guideline under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A). The court further reasoned that even if the application of the cross-reference were erroneous, any such error would be harmless. Second, the court addressed Cerrillo's facial constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court held that this challenge was foreclosed by the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Diaz, which established that such challenges are not viable under current precedent.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, meaning Cerrillo's 120-month sentence and three years of supervised release stand. The decision reinforces the standard for finding intent to kill in sentencing enhancements for firearms offenses and confirms that facial constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) remain unavailable to defendants in the Fifth Circuit following United States v. Diaz.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download