Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Hugo Valencia Mendoza a.k.a. Uriel Valencia Mendoza
Date: 12-24-2021
Case Number: 21-10342
Judge: Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM
Court:
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
On appeal from The United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Atlanta, GA - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Atlanta, GA - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Atlanta, GA- Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with conspiring to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting the possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute charge.
Hugo Valencia Mendoza appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 210 months following his guilty plea for conspiring to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and aiding and abetting the
possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Mendoza
contends the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D.1.1(b)(5) for his offense involving the importation of methamphetamine. He argues that the word "involved†in § 2D.1.1(b)(5) is unconstitutionally vague. After careful
review, we affirm.
The district court committed no error.1 Mendoza's argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Beckles v.
United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017). In Beckles, the Supreme Court
1 We review constitutional challenges to a district judge's use of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th
Cir. 2015).
USCA11 Case: 21-10342 Date Filed: 11/29/2021 Page: 2 of 4
21-10342 Opinion of the Court 3
held that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines cannot be challenged
as unconstitutionally vague. 137 S. Ct. at 892. The Supreme Court
explained that the "void for vagueness†doctrine has been applied
to two kinds of criminal laws: "laws that define criminal offenses
and laws that fix the permissible sentences for criminal offenses.â€
Id. Because the Guidelines do neither, but rather serve as a nonbinding guide to aid judges in their sentencing, the vagueness doctrine does not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. Further, the
Supreme Court reasoned that the Guidelines do not interfere with
the two policies that the void for vagueness doctrine protects—provision of notice and the avoidance of arbitrary enforcement. Id. at
894.
Mendoza's attempt to distinguish Beckles fails. He contends
that because of the vagueness of the word "involved†under
U.S.S.G. § 2D.1.1(b)(5),2 district court judges across the country
could apply the enhancement to anyone no matter how far down
the chain of distribution. But in this specific case, it makes no difference how the district court applied the enhancement provision
because Mendoza challenges only the vagueness of § 2D.1.1(b)(5),
and the Supreme Court held that the advisory guidelines—
2 We previously declined to interpret the word "involved†narrowly and determined the language used by the Sentencing Guidelines supports a broader
reading of the word "involved.†See United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d
779, 784 (11th Cir. 2007).
USCA11 Case: 21-10342 Date Filed: 11/29/2021 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10342
including § 2D.1.1(b)(5)—cannot be unconstitutionally vague in
any case as a matter of law. See Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 894–95
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Hugo Valencia Mendoza a.k.a. ...?
The outcome was: AFFIRMED
Which court heard United States of America v. Hugo Valencia Mendoza a.k.a. ...?
This case was heard in <center><h4><b> United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit </b> <br> <font color="green"><i>On appeal from The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia </i></font></center></h4>, GA. The presiding judge was Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Hugo Valencia Mendoza a.k.a. ...?
Plaintiff's attorney: United States Attorney’s Office. Defendant's attorney: Atlanta, GA - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World. Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement Counselor: MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public. MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800.
When was United States of America v. Hugo Valencia Mendoza a.k.a. ... decided?
This case was decided on December 24, 2021.