Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02029/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gabriel Juarez-Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the *

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has **

determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs

without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(f) and 10TH CIR. R. 34.1(G). The

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 1, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-2029

v. (D. New Mexico)

GABRIEL JUAREZ-MORALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

 (D.C. No. 06-CR-01645-MCA)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before HENRY, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.**

Gabriel Juarez-Morales pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry of

a deported alien previously convicted of an aggravated felony, a violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(2). The district court calculated Mr. JuarezMorales’ sentencing range at forty-six to fifty-seven months but granted his

Appellate Case: 07-2029 Document: 010161609 Date Filed: 11/01/2007 Page: 1
 USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides for a sixteen-level increase in the 1

offense level if the defendant has been convicted of “a crime of violence.” The

term is defined to include “burglary of a dwelling.” USSG cmt. n.1 (B)(iii). The

commentary further explains that “[p]rior convictions of offenses counted under

subsection (b)(1) include the offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and

attempting to commit such offenses.” USSG § 2L1.2 cmt. n.5; see also United

States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 468 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that

“an attempt to commit these crimes of violence [listed in § 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii)]

is itself a crime of violence”). 

-2-

motion for a downward variance and imposed a sentence of thirty-two months’

incarceration.

On appeal, Mr. Juarez-Morales’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel argues that (1) Mr.

Juarez-Morales’ criminal history score over-represents his actual criminal history;

(2) despite the fact that the district court granted his motion for a downward

variance, a still greater variance is warranted; and (3) the district court should

have considered the facts underlying his 1998 California conviction for attempted

first-degree residential burglary.

All of Mr. Juarez-Morales’ arguments concern the 1998 attempted

residential burglary conviction. Applying USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), the

presentence report characterized that conviction as a crime of violence. The

district court agreed with that characterization and imposed a sixteen-level

increase in the offense level. In granting Mr. Juarez-Morales’ motion for a 1

downward variance, the district court noted that the attempted burglary conviction

occurred in 1998, when he was nineteen. The court also observed that he had

Appellate Case: 07-2029 Document: 010161609 Date Filed: 11/01/2007 Page: 2
-3-

“demonstrated a work history” and vocational skills. Rec. Supp. vol. I, at 19-20. 

The court therefore sentenced him to a term of imprisonment fourteen months

below the advisory Guideline range.

Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that Mr. 

Mr. Juarez-Morales has failed to advance a non-frivolous challenge to his

sentence. The court considered the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a). See United States v. Pruitt, 487 F.3d 1298, 1303 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr.

Juarez-Morales has identified no evidence or legal authority that requires a

further downward variance. 

Additionally, Mr. Juarez-Morales’ contention that the district court erred in

refusing to consider the particular circumstances underlying his attempted

burglary conviction is not persuasive. In determining whether a prior offense

constitutes a crime of violence under USSG § 2L1.2, we generally follow a

categorical approach, “‘looking only to the statutory definitions of the prior

offenses, and not to the particular facts underlying those convictions.’” United

States v. Perez-Vargas, 414 F.3d 1282, 1284 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990)). Only if the statute defining

the prior offense is ambiguous or encompasses both violent and non-violent

crimes may we look beyond the statute to certain records of the prior proceeding.

Id. Here, Mr. Juarez-Morales has not argued that these exceptions are applicable.

Appellate Case: 07-2029 Document: 010161609 Date Filed: 11/01/2007 Page: 3
-4-

Thus, the district court did not err in refusing to consider the circumstances

underlying the conviction.

Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

United States Circuit Judge 

 

Appellate Case: 07-2029 Document: 010161609 Date Filed: 11/01/2007 Page: 4