Legal Case

United States v. Guajardo

Guajardo

Court

Unknown Court

Decided

June 17, 2025

Importance

34%

Standard

Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Federal Jurisdiction

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

NEW FEATURE

Agentic Research

Unlock the power of AI-driven legal research. Our advanced agentic system autonomously analyzes cases, identifies patterns, and delivers comprehensive insights in minutes, not hours.

AI-Powered Analysis
Precise Legal Research
10x Faster Results

Join 2,500+ legal professionals

Case Details

Case Details

Legal case information

Status

Decided

Date Decided

June 17, 2025

Legal Significance

Case importance metrics

Importance Score
Standard
Score34%
Citations
0
Legal Topics
Criminal Liability
Federal Statutes

Metadata

Additional information

AddedJun 18, 2025
UpdatedJun 19, 2025

Quick Actions

Case management tools

AI-enhanced legal analysis

Case Summary

Summary of the key points and legal principles

Legal Topics

Areas of law covered in this case

Criminal Liability
Federal Statutes

Case Information

Detailed case metadata and classifications

Court Proceedings

Date FiledJune 17, 2025
Date DecidedJune 17, 2025

Document Details

Times Cited
0
Importance Score
0.3

Similar Cases

5

Cases with similar legal principles and precedents

The People of the State of Colorado v. Benjamin Eugene Davenport.

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-08"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:peopleofthestateofcoloradovdavenportno24sc625june3,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Benjamin Eugene Davenport</span>. <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 24SC625</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 3, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="163" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="163" data-sentence-id="180" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_180" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 22CA2273</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="221" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="221" data-sentence-id="237" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity

Commonwealth v. Wright, B.

80% match
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 45 WAL 2024 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Unpublished v. : Memorandum and Order of the : Superior Court at No. 478 WDA : 2023 entered on January 5, 2024, BRIAN K. WRIGHT, : affirming the Judgment of Sentence : of the Armstrong County Court of Petitioner : Common Pleas at No. CP-03-CR- : 0000200-2022 entered on March 23, 2023 ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2025, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Shifflett, __ A.3d __, 2025 WL 1535292 (Pa. 2025).

Very Similar Similarity

Commonwealth v. Long, S.

80% match
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 347 MAL 2024 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Unpublished v. : Memorandum and Order of the : Superior Court at No. 1463 MDA : 2023 entered on July 2, 2024, SAMANTHA MARIE LONG, : affirming the Judgment of Sentence : of the Cumberland County Court of Petitioner : Common Pleas at No. CP-21-CR- : 0000186-2023 entered on September 12, 2023 ORDER PER CURIAM DECIDED: June 25, 2025 AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2025, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Shifflett, __ A.3d __, 2025 WL 1535292 (Pa. filed May 30, 2025).

Very Similar Similarity

Douglas James Dyer v. The People of the State of Colorado

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:dyervpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc196june17,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Douglas James Dyer</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC196</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 17, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_174"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA1081</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="215" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="215" data-sentence-id="231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity

Reginald James Ryan v. The People of the State of Colorado

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:ryanvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc183june16,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Reginald James Ryan</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC183</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 16, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="158" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="158" data-sentence-id="175" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_175" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA335</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="215" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="215" data-sentence-id="231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity