Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02208/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02208-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonel Rodriguez-Ceballos
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

1

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2208

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellant, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Southern District of Iowa.

Leonel Rodriguez-Ceballos, * 

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 10, 2004

Filed: April 29, 2004 (Corrected 5/5/04)

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, HANSEN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

In this direct criminal appeal, the government challenges the sentence imposed

by the district court after Leonel Rodriguez-Ceballos pleaded guilty to illegal reentry

following deportation.1

 At sentencing, the district court departed downward from a

total offense level of 21–which included a 16-level increase based on a prior

conviction for an aggravated felony–to a total offense level of 16. The court based its

departure decision on the "disproportionate impact" of applying the "entire 16-level

increase" to Rodriguez-Ceballos's total offense level. The court then sentenced

Appellate Case: 03-2208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2004 Entry ID: 1761936 
2

 In violation of Iowa Code § 708.2A(2)(c).

-2-

Rodriguez-Ceballos to 24 months' imprisonment, which was the lowest sentence

within the resulting 24-30 month sentencing range. On appeal, the government argues

that the district court erred in its decision to depart downward. We agree and remand

for resentencing.

I.

The sentencing court expressed particular concern with the "disproportionate

impact" Rodriguez-Ceballos's prior aggravated-felony conviction (for Domestic

Abuse–Assault with a Dangerous Weapon2

) had on his sentencing range. This

conviction stemmed from a domestic dispute between Rodriguez-Ceballos and his

girlfriend, "S.B." According to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR),

"[Rodriguez-Ceballos] threatened her with a knife, squeezed and twisted her breasts,

and stated he would kill her and cut her into little pieces if she called the police."

Rodriguez-Ceballos submitted an objection letter characterizing that assault as a

"one-time occurrence," and further stated that S.B. "is not afraid of [RodriguezCeballos], and . . . intends to move to Mexico to reside with [Rodriguez-Ceballos]

when he is eventually deported to his native country." Rodriguez-Ceballos's written

objections did not dispute that he used a knife during the assault.

The Probation Office declined to change the PSR pointing out that the

information at issue came from "police reports." The Probation Office also pointed

out that "[d]omestic violence literature indicates that often times, victims of assault

recant the statements made to police and others." However, the Probation Office did

note the objection in the final version of the PSR.

At the sentencing hearing, Rodriguez-Ceballos presented testimony from S.B.,

who presented herself as Rodriguez-Ceballos's fiancée. S.B. claimed that she "got

hit," but that Rodriguez-Ceballos did not threaten her with a knife. She acknowledged

Appellate Case: 03-2208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2004 Entry ID: 1761936 
3

 On August 21, 2002, Rodriguez-Ceballos was deported to Mexico. The nocontact order was canceled on August 22, 2002. On November 20, 2002, a one-count

indictment was filed charging Rodriguez-Ceballos with illegal reentry.

-3-

telling the police that he threatened to cut her up into little pieces, but she claimed her

poor grasp of the Spanish language caused her to misunderstand Rodriguez-Ceballos

statement. The government offered two documents into evidence 1) a no-contact

order entered on August 1, 2002 for S.B.'s protection, and 2) the state court judgment

that documented Rodriguez-Ceballos's conviction based upon a plea agreement and

recited that the crime involved the use of a knife.

Following the evidentiary hearing and the arguments of counsel, the district

court stated that the "record . . . suggests that this was an altercation between two

persons involved in a personal relationship," and concluded that "there is serious

question as to whether or not a knife was actually utilized, despite the reference to the

use of a knife in the plea." The district court somewhat discounted S.B.'s credibility

expressing "some concern that care for the [d]efendant today may have caused the

witness to be more generous about the prior events than were accurate." The court

proceeded to sentence Rodriguez-Ceballos to 24 months' imprisonment, after granting

a five-level departure. The government appeals alleging that the sentence imposed is

contrary to the Guideline's methodology for consideration of the seriousness of a

defendant's prior offense.

II.

In Iowa, Rodriguez-Ceballos pleaded guilty to the crime of Domestic

Abuse–Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of Iowa Code § 807.2A(2)(c).

When he entered his plea, Rodriguez-Ceballos was represented by counsel and had

the assistance of an interpreter. Rodriguez-Ceballos was sentenced to two years in

prison, with all but fifteen days suspended.3

 The state court judgment included

Rodriguez-Ceballos's signature and also included the statement "I did the following

Appellate Case: 03-2208 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2004 Entry ID: 1761936 
-4-

to commit this crime," followed by this handwritten declaration: "On 7-18-02 in Polk

Co. I assaulted [S.B.] with a knife placing her in fear of an assault."

We have previously considered the principal issue in this case–whether the

circumstance of a prior offense is a proper basis to support a sentencing departure

under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. In United States v. Dyck, 334 F.3d 736, 740–41 (8th Cir.

2003), we concluded that they were not. Rodriguez-Ceballos acknowledges the

holding of Dyck and attempts to avoid the precedent by characterizing the district

court's departure as a finding that the prior crime of violence did not occur at all. He

contends that absent a knife (or other dangerous weapon), he would have been guilty

of only a misdemeanor offense, resulting in no enhancement under § 2L1.2.

Rodriguez-Ceballos's argument is essentially a collateral attack on the validity

of his state court conviction. However, absent express statutory authorization, a prior

conviction used to enhance a sentence cannot be collaterally attacked unless a

complete deprivation of counsel exists. Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 490–97

(1994). "Federal courts are not forums in which to relitigate state trials." Id. at 490

(citations and internal quotations omitted). Rodriguez-Ceballos was represented by

counsel in the Iowa case, and no express provision allows him to collaterally attack

the validity of this conviction for purposes of sentencing. Cf. 21 U.S.C. § 851(c), (e)

(providing limited ability to collaterally attack statutory-sentencing enhancement in

drug cases).

After careful de novo review of the record, we conclude that the district court

erred in granting Rodriguez-Ceballos a downward departure. See PROTECT Act, 151

Pub.L. No. 108-21, § 401(d), 117 Stat. 650, 670 (2003) (standard of review); United

States v. Gonzales-Ortega, 346 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2003) (PROTECT Act standard of

review applies to pending appeals even though sentencing occurred before Act

became law). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing consistent with

this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2208 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/29/2004 Entry ID: 1761936