Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02107/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Anthony Gallegos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 13 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

PAUL ANTHONY GALLEGOS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) (D.C. 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 91-2107 

No. CR-89-430-01-HB) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination_ of _ this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Defendant-appellant Paul Anthony Gallegos entered a plea of 

guilty to violating 18 u.s.c. S 1952(a)(3), based on traveling in 

interstate commerce to facilitate the possession of 165.9 

kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Defendant 

* 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: 91-2107 Document: 010110249153 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 1
was sentenced to fifty-one months' imprisonment, based on United 

States Sentencing Guidelines section 2El.2, and three years' 

supervised release. He appeals the sentence, arguing that the 

district court incorrectly applied the sentencing guidelines. We 

exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 u.s.c. § 3742 

and affirm the sentence. 

In reviewing the district court's application of the 

sentencing guidelines, we accord due deference to the district 

court's application of the guidelines to the facts of a particular 

case; questions of law are reviewed de novo. United States v. 

Villarreal, No. 91-2102, slip op. at 2, 1992 WL 52607, at *l (10th 

Cir. March 23, 1992). 

The parties agree that the applicable sentencing guideline is 

section 2El. 2: 

Interstate or Foreign Travel or Transportation in Aid of 

a Racketeering Enterprise 

(a) Base Offense Level (Apply the greater): 

( 1) 6; or 

(2) the offense level applicable to the underlying 

crime of violence or other unlawful activity in respect 

to which the travel or transportation was undertaken. 

The offense level applicable to the underlying unlawful 

activity is found in section 2D1.1, Unlawful Manufacturing, 

Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with 

Intent to Commit These Offenses). Pursuant to section 2D1.l(a)(3) 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-2107 Document: 010110249153 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 2
and {c)(9), the base offense level is 26 for the controlled 

substance and quantity in this case, at least 100 kilograms but 

less than 400 kilograms of marijuana. 1 

Defendant asserts that the district court should have applied 

section 2El.2{a){l), resulting in a base offense level of 6, 

rather than section 2El.2(a)(2), resulting in a base offense level 

of 26. According to defendant, subsection {a){2) applies only if 

the plea agreement contains "a stipulation that specifically 

establishes a more serious offense than the offense of 

conviction," Appellant's Br. at 11 {quoting section 1Bl . 2{a)). 

Defendant argues that because he did not specifically stipulate to 

a more serious offense than that of conviction, 

section 2El.2(a){l), rather than section 2El.2(a){2), applies to 

him. 

Section 1Bl.2(a) provides: 

Applicable Guidelines 

{a) Determine the offense guideline section in 

Chapter Two (Offense Conduct) most applicable to the 

offense of conviction (i.e., the offense conduct charged 

in the count of the indictment or information of which 

the defendant was convicted). Provided, however, in the 

case of conviction by a plea of guilty or nolo 

contendere containing a stipulation that specifically 

establishes a more serious offense than the offense of 

conviction, determine the offense guideline section in 

Chapter Two most applicable to the stipulated offense . 

We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute unless 

legislative intent is to the contrary. United States v. Eves, 932 

F.2d 856, 860 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 236 (1991). 

1 Defendant's sentence was ultimately based on an offense level 

of 24, after the base offense level of 26 was reduced two levels 

because defendant accepted responsibility for his criminal 

conduct . See section 3El.l(a). 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-2107 Document: 010110249153 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 3
The plain meaning rule also applies to the sentencing guidelines. 

See, e.g., United States v. Doyan, 909 F.2d 412, 415 (10th Cir. 

1990)(court notes plain meaning of relevant sentencing guidelines 

provisions). 

The plain language of section 1B1.2(a) does not apply here. 

Defendant's sentence was based on the conduct for which he was 

charged and convicted, not on other conduct. See United States v. 

Uca, 867 F.2d 783, 787 (3d Cir. 1989)(discussing sentencing 

guidelines model). The stipulated facts do not establish a more 

serious offense than the offense of conviction. Therefore, 

section 1B1.2(a) does not provide a basis for reversing 

defendant's sentence. 

Defendant raised for the first time on appeal the issue of 

the applicability of section 1B1.2(a). Therefore, if the district 

court had erred in sentencing defendant, we would have been 

required to examine whether the error was plain error. But since 

no error occurred, there is no plain-error issue to decide. 

United States v. Garcia, 893 F.2d 250, 256 n.7 (10th Cir. 1989), 

cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1070 (1990). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-2107 Document: 010110249153 Date Filed: 05/13/1992 Page: 4