Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-02161/USCOURTS-ca10-95-02161-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abelino Guerrero-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff- Appellee, 

. FILED 

Vnated States Court or Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP - G 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

v. No. 95-2161 

ABELINO GUERREROHERNANDEZ, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D. Ct. No. CR 94-571-JC) 

Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Las Cruces, New Mexico, 

appearing for the Appellant. 

Lauren A. Mickey, Assistant United States Attorney (John J. Kelly, United States 

Attorney, and Kelly H. Burnham, Assistant United States Attorney, with her on 

the brief), Las Cruces, New Mexico, appearing for the Appellee. 

Before TACHA, REAVLEY: and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 

*The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 95-2161 Document: 01019277518 Date Filed: 09/06/1996 Page: 1 
T ACHA, Circuit Judge. 

Abelino Guerrero-Hernandez pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, 

a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and reserved his right to appeal the denial of 

his suppression motions. The district court sentenced him to twenty-four months 

in prison. On appeal, Guerrero argues that the district judge erred by denying his 

motions to suppress and by increasing his criminal history and offense levels 

under the sentencing guidelines. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3742(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm. 

In July 1994, as part of an investigation designed to find illegal aliens, the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) requested a list of persons on 

probation or parole from the New Mexico Probation and Parole Office. 

Guerrero's name was on this list. Background checks on the people on the list 

revealed that Guerrero was an alien. The agents then ordered his alien file, which 

showed that he had been previously deported and excluded from the United States 

and that he had been previously convicted of a felony. The file also contained 

photographs of Guerrero. 

INS agents obtained Guerrero's current address from the Metro Narcotics 

Agency in Las Cruces. At Guerrero's home, the agents met his wife, who told 

them that Guerrero was out doing community service for the housing authority as 

-2-

Appellate Case: 95-2161 Document: 01019277518 Date Filed: 09/06/1996 Page: 2 
part of a sentence for a drunk driving conviction. The agents then went to the 

housing authority and found Guerrero. One of the agents asked Guerrero his 

name, and he confirmed that he was Abelino Guerrero. The agent then identified 

himself and the others as INS agents and asked Guerrero whether he was in the 

United States legally. Guerrero responded that he was not. Guerrero was not 

under arrest when the agent asked these questions, and all of the INS agents were 

dressed in plain clothes. 

After Guerrero stated that he was in the United States illegally, he was 

orally advised of his Miranda rights and taken to the Border Patrol station. On 

the way to the station, one of the agents asked Guerrero if he had been previously 

deported. He answered that he had been, and that he had illegally re-entered the 

United States. This statement was consistent with the information in his alien 

file. Upon arriving at the Border Patrol station, Guerrero was re-advised of his 

Miranda rights using a written form, which he signed, indicating that he 

understood his rights and was willing to waive them and speak with the agents 

without an attorney present. One of the agents then questioned Guerrero in order 

to complete Form I-213, the Record of Deportable Alien form. The information 

Guerrero provided in response to the agent's questions included the date and 

place of his prior illegal entry, the date and place of his prior deportation, his 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 95-2161 Document: 01019277518 Date Filed: 09/06/1996 Page: 3 
criminal history, and his previous addresses. The agents already knew some of 

this information through Guerrero's alien file. After the agent completed Form I213, he asked Guerrero to give a sworn statement and read him his Miranda rights 

a third time. At this point Guerrero asked for an attorney, and questioning 

stopped. 

Prior to pleading guilty, Guerrero moved to suppress his statements on the 

grounds that they were elicited before he received his Miranda warnings. 

Guerrero also moved to suppress all the evidence both because the agents lacked 

probable cause to arrest him and because the agents obtained the list of 

probationers and parolees in violation of New Mexico law. The district court 

denied these motions, and Guerrero entered into a conditional plea agreement, 

reserving his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motions. At sentencing, 

Guerrero objected to the presentence report, arguing that his prior felony drug 

convictions were related cases and thus should not be used to increase his 

criminal history level, and that his prior conviction for possession of marijuana 

for sale should be treated as simple possession of marijuana. The district court 

rejected these objections and sentenced him within the applicable guideline range. 

In the context of motions to suppress, we review conclusions of law de 

novo and factual findings for clear error. United States v. Richardson, 86 F .3d 

-4-

Appellate Case: 95-2161 Document: 01019277518 Date Filed: 09/06/1996 Page: 4 
1537, 1543 (lOth Cir. 1996). Guerrero argues that the agents questioned him in 

violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), by asking him his name 

and immigration status without first informing him of his right to remain silent 

and his right to an attorney. Law enforcement officers must give Miranda 

warnings to suspects subject to custodial interrogation. ld.. at 444. However, a 

person is not in custody simply because law enforcement officers question him, 

and a consensual encounter does not become custodial simply because the person 

being questioned is the target of an investigation. United States v. Ellison, 791 

F .2d 821, 823 (1Oth Cir. 1986). In this case, plainclothes INS agents approached 

Guerrero outdoors, in a public place, without displaying firearms. Guerrero had 

no reason to believe that he could not leave or could not refuse to answer when 

the agent inquired as to his identity. Thus, because Guerrero was not in custody 

when the agents asked his name and immigration status, Miranda warnings were 

not required. 

Guerrero also contends that the INS agents lacked probable cause to arrest 

him and thus the statements that he made after his arrest should have been 

suppressed. Probable cause to arrest exists when an officer has learned of facts 

and circumstances through reasonably trustworthy information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 95-2161 Document: 01019277518 Date Filed: 09/06/1996 Page: 5 
person arrested. United States v. Mor~an, 936 F.2d 1561, 1568 (lOth Cir. 1991), 

cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1102 (1992). In this case, the INS agents had probable 

cause to arrest Guerrero for reentry after deportation based on the information in 

his alien file and his statement that he was in the United States illegally. 

Moreover, the INS agents did not obtain Guerrero's alien file in violation 

of New Mexico law. New Mexico Statute § 31-21-6 privileges all "social 

records"-- including presentence reports, pre-parole reports, and supervision 

histories--obtained by the Probation and Parole Board, and limits disclosure of 

these records to the board, the director, the sentencing guidelines commission or 

sentencing judge, and prison authorities. This statute does not apply here, 

however, because Guerrero's name and parole status, which the INS agents 

received from the Probation and Parole Board, is not a social record like a 

presentence report, a pre-parole report, or a supervision history. Instead, this 

information is more like an investigative report, to which this non-disclosure 

statute has been held inapplicable. ~New Mexico v. Rickard, 881 P .2d 57, 59 

(N.M. Ct. App.) (holding that social records are "the types of personal 

observations, sensitive data, and recommendations that probation and parole 

officers use to inform the probation and parole board or sentencing judge 

regarding whether to grant parole or probation"), aff d in part on other ~rounds 

- 6-

Appellate Case: 95-2161 Document: 01019277518 Date Filed: 09/06/1996 Page: 6 
and rev'd in part on other grounds, 884 P.2d 477 (N.M. 1994). While the statute 

protects some information from disclosure, Guerrero's status as a parolee or 

probationer is not the type of sensitive information that this statute was intended 

to protect. 

In addition, the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines 

was not in error. We review the district court's factual determinations at 

sentencing for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. Richardson, 86 F .3d 

at 1553. The Sentencing Guidelines provide that three points should be added to 

the criminal history score for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one 

year and one month. U.S.S.G. § 4Al.1(a). Prior sentences imposed in unrelated 

cases are to be counted separately. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). Prior sentences are 

related if they resulted from offenses that (1) occurred on the same o.ccasion, (2) 

were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (3) were consolidated for trial or 

sentencing. U.S.S.G. § 4Al.2, application n.3. Guerrero contends that two of his 

three prior convictions were consolidated for the guilty plea hearing, and that all 

three were consolidated for sentencing. Thus Guerrero argues that the 

convictions were related and should have been counted only once when 

calculating his criminal history score. The record indicates that the three 

convictions were informally consolidated for convenience and judicial economy. 

- 7 -

Appellate Case: 95-2161 Document: 01019277518 Date Filed: 09/06/1996 Page: 7 
• 

' 

Although a formal judicial order is not necessary to permit a finding that prior 

cases were consolidated for sentencing, United States v. Alberty, 40 F .3d 1132, 

1134 (lOth Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1416 (1995), in the absence ofa 

formal order"[ o ]ur precedents uniformly require ... the defendant to show a 

factual nexus between the prior offenses to demonstrate they are 'related,"' llL. at 

113 5. Guerrero points to no evidence, and we find none in the record, that the 

cases were factually related. Thus, the district court did not err when it concluded 

that Guerrero's prior convictions were not related; the addition of nine criminal 

history points was appropriate. 

Finally, the court did not err by sentencing Guerrero under U.S.S.G. § 

2L 1 .2(b )(2), which provides a 16-level increase for defendants who were 

previously deported after a conviction for an aggravated felony. Aggravated 

felonies include any illicit trafficking in any controlled substance as defined in 21 

U.S.C. § 802, and the offenses can be based on federal or state law. U.S.S.G. § 

2L 1.2, application n. 7. In this case, the court correctly concluded that Guerrero's 

state conviction of possession of marijuana/hashish for sale qualified as an 

aggravated felony. Thus, the 16-level sentence enhancement was appropriate. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

- 8 -

Appellate Case: 95-2161 Document: 01019277518 Date Filed: 09/06/1996 Page: 8