Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03768/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03768-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Jesus Valdovinos Cervantes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3768

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jose Jesus Valdovinos Cervantes, * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: June 23, 2004

Filed: June 28, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Jesus Valdovinos Cervantes (Cervantes) pled guilty to illegally reentering

the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district

court1

 sentenced him to 27 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. On

appeal, Cervantes argues the district court clearly erred when calculating his criminal

history by finding that his previous offenses for obstructing prosecution and false

representation of United States citizenship were unrelated because, although they

Appellate Case: 03-3768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2004 Entry ID: 1781735 
-2-

have different elements, occurred in different venues, and affected different victims,

both offenses were part of a long-running scheme to conceal his identity. Cervantes

also argues that the district court’s alternative upward departure was not justified, and

that the court failed to make the required written findings in support of the departure.

We need not consider the district court’s “alternative” departure because we

find no clear error in the court’s conclusion that Cervantes’s previous sentences were

unrelated and not the result of a single common scheme or plan. See U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.2, cmt. n.3 (previous “sentences are considered related if they resulted from

offenses that (A) occurred on the same occasion, (B) were part of a single common

scheme or plan, or (C) were consolidated for trial or sentencing”); United States v.

Lowe, 930 F.2d 645, 646-47 (8th Cir. 1991) (standard of review). Neither the

similarity of the previous offenses nor their temporal proximity or Cervantes’s

common motive is sufficient to establish that his sentences resulted from a single

common scheme or plan. See id. at 647 (“[s]imilar crimes are not necessarily related

crimes”; motive or modus operandi may be factors in making single-commonscheme-or-plan determination, but they are not conclusive in every case); United

States v. Mau, 958 F.2d 234, 236 (8th Cir. 1992) (rejecting argument that previous

offenses were part of single common scheme simply because they both involved

distribution of controlled substances and occurred within one-year period). Further,

Cervantes pled guilty to the offenses before different tribunals, governing different

jurisdictions, and at different times. See United States v. Manuel, 944 F.2d 414, 416

(8th Cir. 1991) (defendant’s previous forgery convictions were not part of common

scheme and were factually unrelated, in part because defendant pled guilty before

different tribunals, governing different jurisdictions, at different times).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2004 Entry ID: 1781735