USA v. Gonzalez-Hernandez, No. 22-40816 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-40816 Document: 00516976862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 22, 2023 No. 22-40816 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Julio Cesar Gonzalez-Hernandez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:22-CR-137-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Julio Cesar Gonzalez-Hernandez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by an individual illegally in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), and illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was sentenced within the guidelines range to 87 months of imprisonment. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-40816 Document: 00516976862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2023 No. 22-40816 On appeal, Gonzalez-Hernandez challenges the district court’s denial of his pretrial motion to suppress. However, because his guilty plea is not a conditional plea and there is no evidence suggesting that he intended to enter a conditional plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, his challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress is waived. See United States v. Olson, 849 F.3d 230, 231 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 917-18 (5th Cir. 1992). Gonzalez-Hernandez also challenges the district court’s assessment of a two-level sentencing increase, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), because his offense involved between three and seven firearms. He contends that the term “involved” is not clearly defined and that the Guideline is therefore void for vagueness. The argument is unavailing. The Supreme Court has held that “the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.” Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. 256, 259 (2017). Gonzalez-Hernandez’s convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for a 30-day extension to file a supplemental brief addressing the merits of the denial of the motion to suppress is DENIED as unnecessary. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
