Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04125/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04125-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jose Urbina-Mejia
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4125

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff – Appellee; *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jose Urbina-Mejia, also known as * District of South Dakota.

Jose Mejia-Gomercinda, also known *

as Jose Apineda, also known as *

Jose Mejia-Urbina; *

*

Defendant – Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2006

Filed: June 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, JOHN R.GIBSON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Jose Urbina-Mejia pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). At sentencing, the district court1

applied a 16-level enhancement for an earlier conviction of a crime of violence.

Appellate Case: 05-4125 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2006 Entry ID: 2058219
-2-

Urbina-Mejia appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. §

3742, this court affirms.

At sentencing, Urbina-Mejia contested the PSR's recommended 16-level

enhancement based on an state conviction for aggravated battery. He argued that the

government had the burden to prove he was the same Jose Urbina-Mejia who

committed that crime. In response, the government submitted the Illinois criminal

sentence forms of "Jose R. Urbina-Mejia." Additionally, the PSR writer, James

Johnson, testified that he used the National Crime Information Center (NCIC)

database – which verifies records based on fingerprint analysis – and the criminal

sentence forms to verify the state conviction. The court found by a preponderance of

the evidence that Urbina-Mejia was the same person and sentenced him to 57 months,

the bottom of the Guidelines range.

Urbina-Mejia asserts the government failed to prove that he is the same Jose R.

Urbina-Mejia who was convicted of aggravated battery in Illinois. This court reviews

the district court's interpretation and application of the advisory Guidelines de novo,

and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Ruiz, 446 F.3d 762, 773

(8th Cir. 2006). When the defendant objects to the PSR, additional evidence is

required to establish the disputed fact. See United States v. Poor Bear, 359 F.3d

1038, 1042 (8th Cir. 2004). The government must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that the disputed facts in the PSR are accurate. See United States v. Cole,

357 F.3d 780, 784–85 (8th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543,

551 (8th Cir. 2005). 

After Urbina-Mejia objected, the government produced several certified

documents from Illinois, each listing "Jose R. Urbina-Mejia" as the defendant. The

documents do not list any other identification of the defendant. Johnson, the PSR

author, testified that the Illinois convictions were also in the NCIC database, which

is based on fingerprint identification. Johnson explained that during the five years in

Appellate Case: 05-4125 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2006 Entry ID: 2058219
-3-

which he prepared over 200 PSRs, he knew of one instance where the NCIC report

attributed a conviction to the wrong person. He believed this was simply "input

error," and after it was brought to the FBI's attention, the fingerprint analysis helped

correct the mistake. Considering the Illinois documents and Johnson's testimony, the

court found:

Well, the probabilities of a mistake in the Court's view are low here, with

one instance out of two hundred, and that being not a fingerprint error, but

a coming from some sort of an encoding or administrative error, so the

Court is satisfied by more than a preponderance of the evidence that this

conviction applies to this defendant.

Urbina-Mejia argues the Illinois documents cannot be used to prove a prior

conviction because they only contained a name, "Jose R. Urbina-Mejia," with no

additional information to identify him as the same person. The cases he cites, though,

do not support his position. Neither Kubik v. United States, 53 F.2d 763 (8th Cir.

1931), nor United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2003), hold that a document

containing only a name is per se insufficient to establish a prior conviction for

sentencing purposes. Likewise, in Brady v. United States, 24 F.2d 405 (8th Cir. 1928),

the court quashed a grand jury indictment where there was no evidence "of a separate,

distinct, and essential element of the offense," making it distinguishable from the

present case. The out-circuit and state cases he cites similarly do not support his

argument; they all involve proving a prior conviction as an element of the crime at

trial, which carries a higher burden of proof than required at sentencing. See United

States v. Thorpe, 447 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 2006), citing United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220, 266–67 (2005). 

Urbina-Mejia also claims that Johnson did not testify directly about identity; he

never actually inspected the fingerprints used in the NCIC analysis. "A court may

consider any evidence in its sentencing determination that has sufficient indicia of

reliability to support its probable accuracy." United States v. Marshall, 411 F.3d 891,

Appellate Case: 05-4125 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/20/2006 Entry ID: 2058219
-4-

894 (8th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Sharpfish, 408 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir.

2005). During the past five years, Johnson experienced one inaccurate NCIC report

of over 200, and that was due to input error, not a fingerprint mistake. While UrbinaMejia is entitled to put the government to its burden, he provides no evidence that the

NCIC report is unreliable. Given the testimony and evidence, the district court found

the probability of a mistake was low, and that the NCIC report had sufficient indicia

of reliability to support its probable accuracy. Cf. United States v. Stobaugh, 420

F.3d 796, 803 (8th Cir. 2005) (various state computer records of defendant's prior

convictions had sufficient indicia of reliability and accuracy of information). Thus,

the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that

Urbina-Mejia had a prior Illinois conviction for aggravated battery. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4125 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/20/2006 Entry ID: 2058219