## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary3,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 3243 J U A N M A RT I N EZ- M A CI A S, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C R - 2 0 1 7 1 - C M) M el i ssa H arr i son, A ssi st ant Fede ral P ub l i c D efen der for the D i stri ctof K ansas, ( D a v i d J . P h i l l i p s , F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e fe n d e r , w i th h e ro n t h e b r i e fs ) K a n s a s C i t y, K a n sa s, fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. M i chae l G . C hr i s t ens en, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , ( E r i c F. M el gr en, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h hi m on the br i ef) K ans as C i ty , K ans as , forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee. B efor e M UR P HY , M c KAY , and HOLL OW AY , C i rcui tJudg es. M c KAY , C i r cui tJ udge.

D efe ndantJ uan M art i nez- M aci as i ni t i al l yw as depor t ed fr om t he U ni t ed St at es t o M exi co on J une 25, 1999, fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on, pur s uantt o a pl ea- 2-

bar gai n, i n W y andot t e C ount yD i s tr i ctC our tforpos s es s i on of coc ai ne, a fe l ony underK ans as s t at e l aw . H e i l l egal l yr eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on orabout February15, 2000, and w as arr es t ed nea r l yfi ve y ear s l at erbyK ans as C i typol i ce r es pondi ng t o a domest i c batt erycl ai m . A s a r es ul tof thi s arr es t , defe ndantw as char ged and pl eade d gui l t yt o a one- counti ndi ctm entfori l l egal l yr eent er i ng the Un i t e d S t a t e s a f

t e rd e p o r t a t i o n fo ra n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C. §§ 13 26 (a) and (b) (2) . T he d i stri ctcou rtsent enced him t o tw enty -one m on ths’ im p riso n m e n t an d tw o y e a rs o f su p e rv ise d re lea se . T h is s e n ten c e w a s b a se d in par ton a pr e- s ent ence r eportr ecomm endat i on thatthe courtappl yan ei ght - l evel “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” enha ncementunderU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i ne § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( C ). D efe ndantar gues on appea l thatthe advi s or ynatur e of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes fol l ow i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and the r ecomm ended met hod of s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i on i m pl i ed i n L e o c a l v. A sh c ro ft , 543 U . S. 1 ( 2004) , w arr antr ever s al of thi s court ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) i n Uni t ed Stat es v. C as tr o- R ocha , 3 2 3 F .3 d 8 4 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A ccor di ngl y , D efe ndantcont ends hi s ei ght - l evel aggr avat ed fe l onyenhanc ement i s unj us t i fi ed and r es ul t ed i n an unr eas onabl e s ent ence . D efe ndantal s o ar gues t hat s entenci ng dis pari t i es am on g si m i l arl ysi tuated defen dan t s cr eat ed b y“fast tr a c k ” s e n te n c in g p ro g ra m s re n d e rs h is s e n te n c e u n re a s o n a b le . W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes de- 3-

n o v o . United S tates v. Holbert , 2 8 5 F . 3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 5 9 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Th e c r i me of i l l egal r eentr yaft erdepor t at i on foran aggr avat ed fe l onyi s codi fi ed at18 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ( 2) , and Sent enci ng G ui del i ne § 2L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) s ugges t s addi ng an ei ght - l evel enhanc ementw her e deport at i on occur s aft era convi ct i on foran a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y . H o w e v e r, th e d e fin iti o n o f “ a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y ” p ro v id e d in A pp l i cat i on N ote 3 t o § 2L 1. 2 b egins an al m ostcom i cal ser i es of st atutorycross r efe r ence s : “Forpurpos es of s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , ‘ aggr avat ed fe l ony ’ has the m e a n in g g iv e n th a t term in se c tio n 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A ct[( “I N A ”) ] ( 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ) , w i thoutr egar d t o the dat e of c onvi ct i on fort he aggr avat ed fe l ony . ” U nder8 U . S. C . § 1101, w hi ch pr ovi des the d efinit ion s ap p li ca b le t o the IN A , “a g g rav ated fe lon y ” is d efined in p erti n en t part as “i l l i ci tt r aff

i cki ng i n a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . . . i ncl udi ng a drug tr aff i cki ng c ri m e (a s d e fin e d in s e c tio n 9 2 4 (c ) o f T itle 1 8 ).” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( B ). T ur ni ng t o 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) , w e fi nd that“the t erm ‘ drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e’ m eans anyfel onypuni s habl e underthe C ontr ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct[( “C SA ”) ] ( 21 U . S. C . 801 ets eq . ). ” Int erpr et i ng this “rather con fusi ng m aze of st atutorycross re fe re n c e s” in o rd e r to “ d e c ip h e r[ ] w h a t th e ter m ‘a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y ’” m e a n s in th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e c o n te x t, Uni t ed Stat es v. P al aci os - Suar ez , 418 F. 3d 692, 695 ( 6t h C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) , w oul d no doubtpr ove a da unt i ng ta s k g iv e n th e c ir c u it s p lit o n th is is s u e , s ee Lopezv. G onz al es , - - - U . S. - - - , N o. 0 5 -54 7 , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 4 8 7 0 3 1 , at *3 n . 3 (D ec . 5 , 2 0 0 6 ) (co ll ec ti n g circu itca ses),- 4-

e v e n in lig h t o f

th is c o u rt ’s p re v io u s p ro n o u n c e m e n ts o n th e m e a n in g o f th e te rm . F o rtu n a tely , o u r ro u te h a s b e e n se t fo r u s b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt in its re c e n t d e c is io n o n th is p re c is e is s u e . See G onz al ez - G onz al ezv. Weber , --- F . 3 d --

- , 2006 W L 3791275, at*3 ( 10t h C i r . D ec. 27, 2006) ( appl y i ng Lopez ) . I n Lopez v. G onz al es , aft ernot i ng t hatm er e drug pos s es s i on i s notcons i der ed a fel ony u n d e r t h e C S A , i d. at*3 ( ci t i ng 21 U . S. C . § 844( a) ) , and conduc t i ng a ca r eful analy si s of t he st atutes ati ssue, t he S up rem e C ou rtheld that “a s t at e offense c o n stitu tes a ‘fe lo n yp u n ish a b le u n d e r th e C o n tro lled S u b sta n c e s A c t’ o n lyif it pr os cr i bes conductpuni s habl e as a fe l onyunderthatfede r al l aw , ” i d. at*7 . In so hol di ng, t he Supr eme C our texpr es s l yabr ogat ed thi s cour t ’ s deci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. C ab rera- So sa , 81 F. 3d 998 ( 10th C i r . 1996) and effec t i vel yabr ogat ed ourdeci s i on i n C as tr o- R ocha . See G onz al ez - G onz al ez , 2006 W L 3791275, at*4 ( r ecogni zi ng abr ogat i on of C ab rera- So sa a n d th e “ c a s e s th a t h a d fo llo w e d it” ). C ons equent l y , w e mustr emand D efe ndant ’ s cas e t o the di s tr i ctcourtfor r es ent enci ng cons i s t entw i t h t he Supr eme C our t ’ s opi ni on i n Lopez . O urdeci s i on r ender s m ootD efe ndant ’ s cont ent i on thatthe ei ght - l evel enh ancem ent i s pers e u n rea so n ab le. Itd o es n o t, h o w ev er, av o id D efen d an t’ s cl ai m t hata s ent enci ng di s par i t yw as caus ed bythe unava i l abi l i tyof a “ fas ttr ack” s ent enci ng pr ogr am i n t he D i s t r i ctof K ans as . A s thi s ar gum entw i l l s ur vi ve r es ent enci ng, w e addr es s i ther e. W e re c o g n ize th a t ce rta in ju d icia l d istric ts e m p lo yfa st-tra c k p ro g ra m s in- 5-

or dert o expedi t e i m m i gr at i on offe ns e ca s es , and that“[t ] hes e pr ogr ams al l ow defe ndant s t o obt ai n a dow nw ar d departur e i n thei roffe ns e l evel underthe [ S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s] in e x c h a n g e fo r p lea d in g g u iltya n d w a iv in g th e ir rig h ts t o fi l e ce r t ai n m ot i ons and t o appea l . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Ma rtin ez-Tru jil lo , 468 F. 3d 1266, 1267 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . T hes e pr ogr ams ar e author i zed bya pr ovi s i on i n t he Pr os ecut or i al R emedi es and O therT ool s t o E nd the Expl oi t at i on of C h ild re n T o d a yA c t o f 2 0 0 3 (t h e “ P R O T E C T A c t” ). See Pub. L . N o. 108- 21, 117 St at . 650 ( codi fi ed i n s catt er ed s ect i ons of 18, 28, and 42 U . S. C . ) . I n Uni t ed S ta tes v . Ma rtin ez-Tru jil lo , w e hel d thatal though the unava i l abi l i tyof s uch pr ogr ams t o s om e defendant s cr eat es di s par at e s ent ence s , a di s par i tyw as not

“‘ unw arr ant ed’ w i t hi n t he meani ng of § 3553( a) ( 6) w hen the di s par i tyw as s p e c ific a lly a u th o ri z e d b yC o n g re s s in th e P R O T E C T A c t.” 4 6 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 8 . T his decis i on i s consi st ent w i t h the posi t i on t aken byseveral of o ur si st er ci rcui t s, s ee i d. (c iti n g re c e n t d e c isio n s o f th e S e c o n d , F o u rth , F if th , N in th a n d E lev e n th C i r cui t s ) , and w e s ee no r eas on t o departfr om C ongr es s ’ s i m pl i ci tacc ept ance of th is d is p a ra te re s u lt. A ccordi ng l y , t he m at t er i s RE M ANDE D to th e d istric t co u rt w ith i ns t ruct i ons t o VAC ATE d e fe n d a n t’s s e n ten c e a n d re se n ten c e h im c o n sis ten t w ith Lopezv. G onz al es , --- U . S . --- , N o . 0 5 -54 7 , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 4 8 7 0 3 1 (D ec . 5 , 2 0 0 6 ), and thi s opi ni on.