United States v. Lerma

In United States v. Charles Ray Lerma, 123 F.4th 768 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision not to apply a 7-level reduction to Lerma’s Sentencing Guidelines. Under USSG § 2P1.1(b), Lerma did not qualify for the reduction that only applies to prisoners who escape from “non-secure custody” and voluntarily return “within ninety-six hours.” Lerma had argued that he should receive the reduction, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed and held that he escaped from “secure custody” and was therefore ineligible for the 7-level reduction.

In relevant part, the evidence showed that Lerma had escaped from a residential reentry center by leaping over the perimeter fence, but he voluntarily returned later the same day.

Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit held that Lerma had escaped from “secure custody,” so he did not qualify under § 2P1.1(b). The commentary to that Guideline gives this example of “non-secure custody”: “custody with no significant physical restraint,” such as “an institution with no physical perimeter.” § 2P1.1 cmt. n.1. But Lerma’s residential facility did have a physical perimeter. “A fence is a physical perimeter that can constitute a significant physical restraint under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b),” so Lerma did not qualify for the 7-level reduction.