Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06066/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Armando Acosta
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIT~ L D -- _United States ~of Appeali UNITED STATES COURT OF APP~ Tenth Circuit 

MAY 6 1993 

-----------MROBERTL.HOECKER 

Clerk . 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ARMANDO ACOSTA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 92-6066 

(D.C. No. 90-53-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Acosta entered a guilty plea to the crime of conspiracy 

to possess a controlled substance (cocaine) with the intent to 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, · res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6066 Document: 010110110054 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 1 
distribute. Mr. Acosta appeals his sentence asserting only that 

the sentencing court incorrectly _calculated his criminal history 

category. We affirm. 

Simply by way of background information, we note this is Mr. 

Acosta's second appeal to this court. In his first appeal, Mr. 

Acosta appealed the district court's denial of his motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea (which we affirmed} and his sentence 

which was based on an upward departure. We vacated the sentence 

and remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Acosta, No. 

90-6266, Order & Judgment, December 13, 1991. 

sentence which Mr. Acosta now appeals. 

It is the new 

At resentencing the district court computed the Guideline 

range to be 33-41 months and sentenced Mr. Acosta to 41 months. 

This computation was based upon a base offense level of 18, which 

Mr. Acosta accepts, and a criminal history category of III, which 

Mr. Acosta disputes. 

The sentencing court calculated Mr. Acosta's criminal history 

category as III based upon the following: 

1. One point was assessed for a November 6, 1980, state 

court conviction for theft. See U.S.S.G. §4Al.l(c}; 

2. Three points were assessed for a May 23, 1985, federal 

conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana. See U.S.S.G. 

§4Al.l(a}; 

3. Two points were assessed for committing the instant 

offense while under federal parole supervision. See U.S.S.G. 

§4Al.l(d}. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6066 Document: 010110110054 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 2 
At sentencing Mr. Acosta objected to the one-point assessment 

for the state conviction and the two-point assessment for 

committing the instant offense while on federal parole and 

reasserts the same arguments on appeal. 

Mr. Acosta was convicted in state court on November 6, 1980, 

and was sentenced to ten years probation. The instant offense was 

committed in January 1990. In order to assess one point for the 

state conviction, the instant offense must have occurred within 

ten years of the state conviction. At sentencing 

argued that he had an agreement with the state 

completed the probation wi t hout it being revoked, the 

would be expunged. Mr. Acosta asserted he had 

Mr. Acosta 

that if he 

conviction 

filed the 

appropriate documents with the state; however, Mr. Acosta 

acknowledged the state had not expunged this conviction at the 

time of sentencing. 

Legal conclusions with respect to the Sentencing Guidelines 

are reviewed de nova. United States v. Shewmaker, 936 F.2d 1124, 

1126 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 884 (1992). We 

view United States v. Cox, 934 F.2d 1114, 1124 (10th Cir. 1991), 

as dispositive. In Cox we held that if a conviction is not 

expunged at the time of sentencing, the conviction is considered a 

"prior conviction" for purposes of U.S.S.G. §4Al.1 and the point 

should be assessed. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6066 Document: 010110110054 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 3 
We need not consider Mr. Acosta's second contention wherein 

he argues the sentencing court erred by assessing two points for 

committing the instant offense while under federal parole 

supervision as our decision on this issue would make no difference 

in Mr. Acosta's sentence. 

Mr. Acosta's criminal history category is III. In order to 

reduce the criminal history category to II, Mr. Aco~ta had to 

prevail on both issues, which he cannot now accomplish. Criminal 

history category III includes point totals of four, five, and six. 

Were we to agree with Mr. Acosta concerning the conviction while 

under federal parole, it would reduce his criminal history score 

to four, which results in Mr. Acosta remaining in criminal history 

category III. See U.S.S.G. Ch.5, Pt.A--Sentencing Table. 

The judgment and sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-6066 Document: 010110110054 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 4