Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-06-05573/USCOURTS-ca6-06-05573-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zeneida C. Rivera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 08a0084p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ZENEIDA C. RIVERA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

N

No. 06-5573

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.

No. 05-00079—Thomas W. Phillips, District Judge.

Argued: October 22, 2007

Decided and Filed: February 20, 2008 

Before: MARTIN, GIBBONS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Mike Whalen, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jeffrey E. Theodore, ASSISTANT

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mike Whalen,

Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Jeffrey E. Theodore, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION _________________

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Zeneida Rivera pled guilty and was convicted of

transporting illegal aliens from New Jersey to Knoxville, Tennessee for the purpose of obtaining

driver’s licenses for the aliens. She alleges that the district court erred by selecting the United States

Sentencing Guideline provision applicable to fraudulent documents related to naturalization, rather

than the provision applicable to generic fraud and forgery. Because we agree with Rivera that the

documents she procured were not related to immigration or naturalization, we REVERSE the district

court and REMAND for re-sentencing under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2B1.1. 

I.

From October 2004 until July 2005, Rivera transported illegal aliens from New Jersey to

Tennessee in order to procure “certificates for driving” for the aliens. To this end, she provided

transportation from New Jersey, hotel rooms while in Tennessee, and documents purporting to show

that the aliens had addresses in the state. After a prolonged investigation, Rivera was arrested and

1

 Case: 06-5573 Document: 0061216528 Filed: 02/20/2008 Page: 1
No. 06-5573 United States v. Rivera Page 2

1

Trafficking in a Document Relating to Naturalization, Citizenship, or Legal Resident Status, or a United States

Passport; False Statement in Respect to the Citizenship or Immigration Status of Another; Fraudulent Marriage to Assist

Alien to Evade Immigration Law.

2

§ 2L2.2 does not apply here because it pertains to documents procured for one’s own use. 

3

Illegal aliens became ineligible for Tennessee certificates for driving when this amendment was repealed.

pled guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 1028 for conspiring to cause the unauthorized production of Tennessee

driver’s licenses. Rivera’s Presentence Investigation Report listed U.S. Sentencing Guideline

§ 2L2.11 as the applicable guideline for Rivera’s case, finding that she trafficked in documents

related to naturalization, citizenship or legal resident status. The Report also included enhancements

for producing more than 100 documents, and for being a leader of a conspiracy involving five or

more participants.

For a violation of § 1028, the Statutory Index directs the district court to three possible

provisions for calculation of the base Guideline range: § 2B1.1 (“Fraud and Deceit; Forgery;

Offenses Involving Altered or Counterfeit Instruments . . .”), § 2L2.1 (“Trafficking in a Document

Relating to Naturalization, Citizenship, or Legal Resident Status . . .”), or § 2L2.2.2 U.S.S.G. App.

A (2005). Rivera objected to her sentence under § 2L2.1, maintaining that she should be charged

under § 2B1.1 because the certificates obtained by the aliens were not driver’s licenses, but rather

“certificates” showing only that one had passed a driving test.

 On April 19, 2006, the district court overruled Rivera’s objections and sentenced her to 46

months’ imprisonment under U.S.S.G. § 2L2.1 and included both criminal enhancements for

producing more than 100 documents and for leading the conspiracy. Rivera filed a timely notice of

appeal on April 26, 2006, maintaining that (1) the trial court erred in denying Rivera’s objection to

the application of U.S.S.G. § 2L2.1, and (2) the court’s imposition of the maximum sentence in the

guideline range was substantially unreasonable.

This Court reviews de novo the question of whether the district court selected the correct

Guideline provision from among those listed in the Statutory Index. United States v. Hochschild, 442 F.3d 974, 977 (6th Cir. 2006). Because we find that the district court sentenced Rivera under

the wrong guideline, we will not address the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

II.

In 2004, Tennessee enacted a dual system of driver’s licenses and “certificates for driving”

in an effort to make the roads safer and to comport with the federal government’s increased security

standards. The certificates were issued to illegal aliens and aliens who were not lawful permanent

residents of the state, while licenses were issued only to citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-321. The new law specifically contemplated illegal aliens procuring these

certificates. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1340-1-13-.08(1)(c) (making illegal aliens eligible for

certificates for driving) (repealed 2006).3

 The licenses and certificates were substantially similar,

except for the certificate’s earlier expiration date and a phrase on its face that stated “For driving

purposes only - not valid for identification.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-102(6) (2007).

In defending the dual system against an Equal Protection claim, the State Attorney General’s

office said that Tennessee “furthered [the interests of road safety and national security] on a rational

basis when it decided to issue driver’s licenses to citizens and permanent lawful resident aliens while

also issuing certificates for driving to illegal aliens.” Brief of Appellees at 14, League of United

Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2007). A federal court agreed:

 Case: 06-5573 Document: 0061216528 Filed: 02/20/2008 Page: 2
No. 06-5573 United States v. Rivera Page 3

The State of Tennessee has the difficult and politically charged task of making the

highways safe for driving and also making the state safe from crime and terrorism.

In balancing these interests, the State has decided to issue driver’s licenses to citizens

and lawful permanent resident aliens while also issuing driving certificates to illegal

aliens and aliens who are not permanent lawful residents.

League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26507, at *18 (M.D. Tenn.

2004), aff’d, 500 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2007).

The certificates could not be used for identification, but they could be used for motor vehicle

operation, both in Tennessee and in other states. This was the intended use proffered by the aliens,

who told their arresting officer that they wanted the licenses so that they could drive to their jobs

in New Jersey. The reason that they did not obtain driver’s licenses in New Jersey was that proof

of legal immigrant status was required in the application.

Rivera pled guilty to “provid[ing] the aliens documents, such as mail and vehicle

registrations, that showed a Knoxville address.” The plea agreement says nothing about providing

false proof of legal status, and indeed, none was needed to obtain the certificates in Tennessee

because they were intended for illegal aliens. She maintains, and we agree, that these certificates

were not related to naturalization, citizenship, or legal status. First of all, the certificates were not

intended to be used as identification, and stated so directly on their face. Second, because they

explicitly stated that they could not be used for identification purposes, such certificates likely could

not be used to gain any of the benefits of legal status; if they could be put to such use, Tennessee’s

own policy is at fault, not the people who acted under it. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.9(B). Finally

and most importantly, there was no evidence on the record that any of the certificates were actually

used to obtain legal status. We therefore find that the certificates were unrelated to naturalization,

citizenship, or legal status, and that the district court erred in sentencing Rivera under Guideline

§ 2L2.1.

III.

Because we agree with Rivera that the district court erred in sentencing her under Guideline

§ 2L2.1, we do not address the substantive reasonableness of her sentence under that statute.

Instead, we REVERSE the district court and REMAND for re-sentencing under U.S. Sentencing

Guideline § 2B1.1.

 Case: 06-5573 Document: 0061216528 Filed: 02/20/2008 Page: 3