United States v. Guajardo
Guajardo
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
June 17, 2025
Importance
34%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
Case: 24-40534 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-40534 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 17, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Isidro Ismael Guajardo, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:23-CR-1184-1 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Isidro Ismael Guajardo challenges his within-Guidelines 72-months’ sentence, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to transport an alien within the United States and transporting an alien within the United States for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Guajardo _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-40534 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2025 No. 24-40534 contests the district court’s application of a two-level reckless-endangerment enhancement under Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.1(b)(6) (quoted infra). Guajardo did not preserve this issue in district court (as he correctly concedes). Because the issue was not preserved, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted). Guajardo has not shown the requisite clear-or-obvious error. The Guidelines provide for a two-level increase to defendant’s base- offense level “[i]f the offense involved intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person”. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6). Our court has identified non-exhaustive “aggravating factors” that may justify application of the adjustment, which include: “the availability of oxygen, exposure to temperature extremes, the aliens’ ability to communicate with the driver of the vehicle, their ability to exit the vehicle quickly, and the danger to them if an accident occurs”. United States v. Zuniga-Amezquita, 468 F.3d 886, 889 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2006). Guajardo contends the facts of his case are analogous to those in United States v. Solis-Garcia, 420 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), where our court concluded that the district court’s application of the reckless-endangerment enhancement was error when the aliens were merely lying down in the cargo area of a van without the presence of any of the above-described aggravating factors. Id. at 516. Solis-Garcia and the instant case present facial similarities, as both cases involve alien passengers located in the cargo area of a vehicle; 2 Case: 24-40534 Document: 71-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2025 No. 24-40534 but, unlike the passenger in Solis-Garcia, Guajardo’s passenger was not merely lying on the floor in the cargo area—he was underneath the floor of the cargo area, wedged into the spare-tire compartment. In short, the facts at hand are easily distinguishable from those in Solis-Garcia. Guajardo does not cite, and research did not provide, any cases that, like this one, involve transporting an alien in the spare-tire compartment of an SUV. And, “[i]n this circuit, a lack of binding authority is often dispositive in the plain error context”. United States v. McGavitt, 28 F.4th 571, 577 (5th Cir. 2022). Moreover, we have affirmed application of the disputed enhancement when “the alien was jammed into a compartment or wedged in
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 17, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
Case: 24-40534 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2025
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 24-40534
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 17, 2025
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Isidro Ismael Guajardo,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:23-CR-1184-1
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Isidro Ismael Guajardo challenges his within-Guidelines 72-months’ sentence, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to transport an alien within the United States and transporting an alien within the United States for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Guajardo
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-40534 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2025
No. 24-40534
contests the district court’s application of a two-level reckless-endangerment enhancement under Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.1(b)(6) (quoted infra). Guajardo did not preserve this issue in district court (as he correctly concedes). Because the issue was not preserved, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, he must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted). Guajardo has not shown the requisite clear-or-obvious error. The Guidelines provide for a two-level increase to defendant’s base- offense level “[i]f the offense involved intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person”. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6). Our court has identified non-exhaustive “aggravating factors” that may justify application of the adjustment, which include: “the availability of oxygen, exposure to temperature extremes, the aliens’ ability to communicate with the driver of the vehicle, their ability to exit the vehicle quickly, and the danger to them if an accident occurs”. United States v. Zuniga-Amezquita, 468 F.3d 886, 889 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2006). Guajardo contends the facts of his case are analogous to those in United States v. Solis-Garcia, 420 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), where our court concluded that the district court’s application of the reckless-endangerment enhancement was error when the aliens were merely lying down in the cargo area of a van without the presence of any of the above-described aggravating factors. Id. at 516. Solis-Garcia and the instant case present facial similarities, as both cases involve alien passengers located in the cargo area of a vehicle;
2
Case: 24-40534 Document: 71-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2025
No. 24-40534
but, unlike the passenger in Solis-Garcia, Guajardo’s passenger was not merely lying on the floor in the cargo area—he was underneath the floor of the cargo area, wedged into the spare-tire compartment. In short, the facts at hand are easily distinguishable from those in Solis-Garcia. Guajardo does not cite, and research did not provide, any cases that, like this one, involve transporting an alien in the spare-tire compartment of an SUV. And, “[i]n this circuit, a lack of binding authority is often dispositive in the plain error context”. United States v. McGavitt, 28 F.4th 571, 577 (5th Cir. 2022). Moreover, we have affirmed application of the disputed enhancement when “the alien was jammed into a compartment or wedged in
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 17, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools