United States v. Duran-Gonzalez

── United States v. Duran-Gonzalez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 22-51055 Document: 195-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-51055 ____________ FILED June 2, 2026 United States of America, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Heraclio Duran-Gonzalez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CR-356-3 ______________________________ Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Willett and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Chief Judge: Heraclio Duran-Gonzalez appeals his sentence, arguing that the prior convictions on which it was based are invalid because he was not provided with an interpreter. Regardless of the standard of review, this challenge constitutes a collateral attack barred by Supreme Court precedent, and we therefore AFFIRM his sentence. I Heraclio Duran-Gonzalez twice pleaded guilty to and was convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in the District of Case: 22-51055 Document: 195-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 No. 22-51055 New Mexico, once in 2014 and once in 2015. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. In both proceedings, he had the assistance of counsel. In late 2017, while on supervised release for the two prior convictions, Duran-Gonzalez was arrested in Texas and charged with possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana. He pleaded guilty again, and the presentence report recommended applying the career-criminal enhancement based on his two prior convictions per Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1(b). See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(b) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2016). On June 18, 2018, the day of Duran-Gonzalez’s sentencing hearing, his counsel filed a sentencing memorandum requesting a downward variance, while noting that Duran-Gonzalez had no objection to the PSR. The memorandum argued that at least one of Duran-Gonzalez’s prior convictions was invalid because, despite Duran-Gonzalez’s primary language being Tarahumara, a trained Tarahumara interpreter was not present at the proceedings. 1 The memorandum maintained that the absence of an interpreter constituted an effective denial of counsel and consequently that at least one of the prior convictions was unconstitutional. The district court overruled the motion for downward variance and imposed a bottom-of-the- Guidelines prison term of 151 months and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Duran-Gonzalez argues that the district court incorrectly relied on his two prior convictions in treating him as a career criminal under § 4B1.1. He asserts that his prior convictions cannot be used as predicate convictions to support the career-criminal enhancement because: (1) the absence of a translator violated due process; (2) his plea was not knowing and voluntary; (3) he did not have effective assistance of counsel; and (4) lack of _____________________ 1 Tarahumara is an unwritten Uto-Aztecan language, spoken in an isolated, mountainous region of Mexico but linguistically separate