Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 92-7562
(Summary Calendar)
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDY JESUS VALLEJO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
________________________________________________
(September 2, 1993)
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andy Jesus Vallejo appeals the district court's denial of his
motion for a hearing on his motion to reconsider the extent of a
downward departure from the federal sentencing guidelines.1
Finding no abuse of discretion in the court's refusal to hold a
hearing, we affirm.
Vallejo pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1988).
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the government moved for a downward
1
See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1991).

departure at sentencing, recommending a sentence reduction of "up
to 50 per cent" less than the applicable sentencing range.
The probation officer determined that Vallejo's sentencing
range was 151 to 188 months of imprisonment. At sentencing, the
district court accepted the government's recommendation for
sentence reduction, and sentenced Vallejo to a term of eighty-four
months. The court stated that it had not departed to fifty percent
of the lowest end of the sentencing range because Vallejo had not
been "as straightforward as he could have been with the Court" when
he pled guilty. Record on Appeal vol. 3, at 8-9.
After sentencing, Vallejo moved for a new trial, "only as it
related to sentencing." Brief for Vallejo at 10; see Record on
Appeal vol. 1 tab 64. He alleged that the court should have
conducted a psychological examination at sentencing so that the
court could understand that "what seemed to the Court to be a lack
of veracity was instead primarily a deficit in socialization and
interpersonal skills" caused by a "puerile personality." See
Record on Appeal vol. 1 tab 64.
The district court, construing the motion for new trial as a
motion for reconsideration of Vallejo's sentence, denied the
motion. Vallejo then filed a motion for a "full hearing" on the
denial of his motion for reconsideration. By its order dated
August 11, 1992, the court denied that motion as well. Vallejo
appeals only the court's order denying his motion for a hearing on
his motion for reconsideration; he neither appeals the denial of
-2-

his motion for reconsideration, nor the sentence imposed by the
court. See id. tab. 80.
We have previously held that "[d]epartures from the guidelines
are within the broad discretion of the district court." United
States v. Adams, 996 F.2d 75, 78 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing United
States v. Roberson, 872 F.2d 597, 601 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493
U.S. 861, 110 S. Ct. 175, 107 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1989)). We therefore
apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the district
court's refusal to hold a hearing on its denial of Vallejo's motion
for reconsideration.
There is no authority directly on point regarding whether a
district court must grant a hearing on a motion to reconsider the
extent of a legal downward departure from the sentencing
guidelines.2 Several factors, however, support the court's
decision not to hold a hearing. First, Vallejo did not object to
the court's stated rationale for its sentence at the sentencing
hearing. See Record on Appeal vol. 3 (sentencing transcript).
Second, Vallejo did not object to the Presentence Report ("PSR"),
which failed to mention any psychological problems which Vallejo
may have been suffering from at the time of sentencing. See PSR ¶
47. Moreover, because of the great deference we give district
courts in deciding whether even to depart downward from the
2
Vallejo does not contest the legality of the court's
downward departure. See Brief for Vallejo; see also U.S.S.G. §
5K1.1 (stating that a court may depart downward from the guidelines
"[u]pon motion of the government stating that the defendant has
provided substantial assistance").
-3-

guidelines,3 much less the extent of such a departure, we hold that
the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to hold a
hearing on Vallejo's motion to reconsider the extent of the court's
downward departure.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
3
See United States v. Mitchell, 964 F.2d 454, 462 (5th
Cir. 1992) (reiterating the well-established rule that we "will not
review a district court's refusal to depart from the Guidelines,
unless the refusal was in violation of the law" (attribution
omitted)).
-4-