Case ID: f-appx_154/html/0013-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rhonda CAUFIELD, Defendant— Appellant.
    No. 05-30046.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 18, 2005.
    Decided Nov. 9, 2005.
    Klaus P. Richter, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    John P. Rhodes, Esq., David C. Avery, Esq., Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: CUDAHY, T.G. NELSON, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rhonda Caufield was sentenced to one month in prison, one year of supervised release, and a $2,500 fine for possessing 7.4 grams of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Section 844(a) includes a sentence enhancement provision whereby the sentence can be increased from a maximum of one year in prison and a $1,000 fine to a maximum of two years in prison and a $2,500 fine, if the defendant has “a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, [that] has become final.” 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Caufield’s sentence was enhanced under this provision based on a 1998 Montana state drug offense for which she had received a deferred sentence. On appeal, Caufield argues that the 1998 offense is not a “conviction ... [that] has become final” within the meaning of § 844(a).

The question of whether a deferred or expunged sentence is a final conviction under § 844(a) is a question of federal law, not state law. United States v. Dickerson, 460 U.S. 103, 119, 103 S.Ct. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983). As a matter of federal law, we have previously recognized that a defendant may not enjoy the benefits of an expungement statute until the sentence is actually expunged. United States v. Varela, 993 F.2d 686, 694 (9th Cir.1993). Caufield’s sentence remains a final conviction within the meaning of § 844(a).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.