T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### S e p t e m b e r1,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. AL E J ANDR O T AP I A- L E ON, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2275 ( D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co) ( D . C. N o. CR - 05 - 44 6 J P)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C ir c u it J u d g e s . A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al ar gum ent . Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T hi s cas e i s , t her efor e, o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. D efe ndant - A ppel l antA l ej andr o T api a- L eon pl eade d gui l tyi n the U ni t ed S t a t e s D i s t r i c tC o u r tfo rt h e D i s tr i c to f N e w M e x i c o t o i l l e g a l r e e n try b y a-2-

d e p o rt e d a lie n a f

te r c o n v ic tio n o f

a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a )(1 ), (a )(2 ), an d (b )(2 ). T h e d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d T a p ia- L e o n to se v e n ty m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , bas ed i n par ton a s i xt een- l evel enhanc ementforpr i or depor t at i on aft era convi ct i on fora fe l onyal i en s m uggl i ng offe ns e. T api a- L eon ap p ea ls th e a p p li ca ti o n o f th e e n h an ce m en t i n ca lculati n g h is sen tenc e. W e a ssert j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) , and affi rm . A ft erT api a- L eon ent er ed a pl ea of gui l ty , t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) bas ed on the 2004 e d itio n o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s (“ U S S G ” o r “ G u id e lin e s ” ). T api a- L eon’ s bas e offens e l evel w as ei ght . T he PSR i ndi cat ed Tapi a- L eon w as pr evi ous l ydepor t ed af t erbei ng convi ct ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor t he S ou t hern D i stri ctof Il l i no i s of nine cou nts of il l egal transport at i on of ali ens, i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . B as ed on thes e pr i orconvi ct i ons , t he P S R rec o m m en d ed a six teen -l ev el en h an ce m en t fo r prior d ep o rt ati o n af ter a c o n v ic tio n fo r a fe lo n ya lie n s m u g g lin g o ffe n s e . See U S S G § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( A )( v ii) . T he PSR al s o r ecomm ended a t hr ee- l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entforacc ept ance of re s p o n s ib ility, b ri n g in g T a p ia -L e o n ’s a dju s te d o ffe n s e le v e l to tw e n ty-o n e . T api a- L eon’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw as V , r es ul t i ng i n a G ui del i nes r ange of s e v e n ty to e ig h ty-s e v e n m o n th s . T api a- L eon r eques t ed thatt he di s tr i ctcourti m pos e a s ent ence bel ow t he ra n g e s e t o u t in th e P S R . H e a c k n o w le d g e d th e te rm “ a lie n s m u g g lin g o ffe n s e ,”-3-

as defi ned i n t he 2004 edi t i on of the G ui del i nes , i ncl udes convi ct i ons fori l l egal t r ans por t at i on of al i ens , i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . H e not ed, how ever , t hatt hi s cour tdefi ned “a l i en s m uggl i ng offe ns e” unde ra form erver s i on of the G ui del i nes t o r equi r e “c l andes t i ne movem entorconce al m entof al i ens . ” See Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez - C andej as , 347 F. 3d 853, 855–57 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( di s cus s i ng 2002 edi t i on of the G ui del i nes , w hi ch r equi r ed a s i xt een- l evel enh ancem ent for pr i or depo rt at i on aft er conv i ct i on for an ali en sm ug gli ng offense comm i t t ed forpr ofi tand di d notexpl i ci t l ydefi ne the t erm “al i en s m uggl i ng offe ns e”) . T api a- L eon ar gued the fa ct s under l y i ng hi s I l l i noi s convi ct i ons di d not i ncl ude anycl andes t i ne movem entorconce al m ent . I ns t ead, acc or di ng t o T api aL eon, he mer el yacc ept ed a r i de i n a vehi cl e cont ai ni ng ot heral i ens and dr ove the v e h icle w h e n th e o rig in a l d riv e r b e c a m e tired . T h u s, T a p ia- L e o n a rg u e d , h is offe ns e w as m or e aki n t o al i en tr ans por t at i on t han al i en s m uggl i ng and w as not t he type of c onductt he enha ncementw as m eantt o det er . T api a- L eon ur ged the di s t r i ctcour tt o t ake the ci r cumst ance s of hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons i nt o cons i der at i on w h en ex erc isi n g it s d iscreti o n u n d er Un ite dS ta te s v . B o o ke r, 543 U . S. 220 (2 0 0 5 ), an d a p p ly in g th e fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) to a rriv e a t an a p p ro p ria te s ent ence . T he di s t r i ctcour tadopt ed the r ecomm endat i ons cont ai ned i n the PSR at s ent enci ng. I n part i cul ar , i tappl i ed the s i xt een- l evel enhanc ementforpr i or depor t at i on aft era convi ct i on fora fe l onyal i en s m uggl i ng offe ns e. T he di s tr i ct-4-

c o u rt a lso c o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs a n d d e ter m in e d “ th e re a re n o fa c to rs in this case that sh o u ld tak e ito u tsi d e o f th e g u ideline ra n g e.” T h e d istri ct co u rt t her efor e s ent ence d T api a- L eon t o a t erm of s eventym onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , the b o tto m o f

th e a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . T api a- L eon’ s appea l chal l enges the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of the s i xt een- l evel enhanc ementforpr i ordeport at i on aft era convi ct i on fora fe l ony al i en s m uggl i ng offe ns e. T api a- L eon as s er t s he cont es t ed the fa ctual bas i s fort he enhanc ementi n hi s obj ect i ons t o the PSR . Speci fi cal l y , acc or di ng t o T api a- L eon, h e a rgu ed h is prior Il li n o is co n v ict ion s fo r i ll eg al tran sp o rt ati o n o f a li en s w ere notal i en s m uggl i ng offe ns es beca us e theydi d noti nvol ve cl andes t i ne movem ent o rc o n c e a l me n t . Ta p i a - Le o n n o t e s wh e n a d e fe n d a n to bj e c t s t o a fa c ti n th e P S R, t h e g o v e r n m e n ti s r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e th a tfa c ta tth e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Kei f er , 198 F. 3d 798, 800 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . B eca us e the governm entdi d notpr es entanyevi dence demonstr at i ng hi s al i en s m uggl i ng convi ct i ons i nvol ved cl andes t i ne movem entor conce al m ent , T api a- L eon ar gues the ca s e s houl d be r emanded forr es ent enci ng. T api a- L eon mi s char act er i zes the natur e of the obj ect i ons he made t o the PSR i n di s t r i ctcour t . T api a- L eon di d notcont es tthe fa ctual bas i s forthe s i xt eenl evel enhanc ement . A ts ent enci ng, T api a- L eon i ndi cat ed the fa ct s s t at ed i n the P S R w e re n o t in d is p u te a n d th e re w a s n o n e e d fo r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . I ns t ead, T api a- L eon as ked the di s tr i ctcour tt o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o i m pos e a-5-

s ent ence bel ow t he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange be caus e hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons for i l l egal t r ans por t at i on of al i ens w er e l es s s er i ous than the offens es the enhanc ementw as al l egedl ydes i gned t o det er . B eca us e Tapi a- L eon di d notobj ect t o an yfact s contai ned i n the PS R , the d i stri ctcou rtw as perm i t t ed to r el yon tho se fa c ts to s u p p o rt th e e n h a n c e m e n t. See Kei f er , 1 9 8 F .3 d a t 8 0 0 . E v e n if T a p ia- L e o n ’s a rg u m e n t b e lo w c o u ld b e c o n stru e d a s a n o bjec tio n to t he fa ctual bas i s fort he s i xt een- l evel enhanc ement , the governm entw as not r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e , a n d t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tw a s n o tr e q u i r e d t o fi n d b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatT api a- L eon’ s i l l egal tr ans por t at i on of al i ens convi ct i ons i nvol ved cl andes t i ne movem entorconce al m ent . T api a- L eon pl eade d gui l t yt o i l l egal r eentr ybya deport ed al i en af t erconvi ct i on of an a ggr avat ed fel ony . A defe ndantconvi ct ed of i l l egal r eentryi s s ubj ectt o a s i xt een- l evel enhanc ementunderU SSG § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( vi i ) i f he w as pr evi ous l ydeport ed, or unl aw ful l yr emai ned i n t he U ni t ed St at es , aft era convi ct i on fora fe l onyal i en s m uggl i ng offe ns e. T he comm ent aryt o § 2L 1. 2 s t at es thatthe t erm “‘ al i en s m uggl i ng offe ns e’ has t he meani ng gi ven thatt erm i n s ect i on 101( a) ( 43) ( N ) of t h e I mm i g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i t yAc t( 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( N) ) . ” US S G § 2 L 1 .2 a p p . n .1 (B )(I). S e c tio n 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(N ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t in tu rn a p p lies to an offens e des cr i bed i n par agr aph ( 1) ( A ) or( 2) of s ect i on 1324( a) of t his t i t l e (r el at i ng t o ali en sm ug gli ng ), excep ti n the case of a fir st offe ns e forw hi ch the al i en has aff i r m at i vel ys how n thatthe al i en-6-

comm i t t ed the offens e forthe purpos e of a s s i s t i ng, abett i ng, orai di ng o n lyth e a lien ’s s p o u se , ch ild , o r p a re n t (a n d n o o th e r in d iv id u a l) to v iolate a p rov isi o n o f th is ch ap ter. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(N ). T h e six tee n -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t th e re fo re is a p p lica b le to a n yd e fe n d a n t p re v io u s ly d e p o rt e d a f te r a c o n v ic tio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) or( 2) , unl es s t hatconvi ct i on w as the defendant ’ s fi r s tal i en sm ug gli ng offense an d involved o nlythe d efen dan t ’s i m m ediat e fam i l ym em bers. T api a- L eon w as pr evi ous l ydeport ed af t erconvi ct i on i n I l l i noi s on ni ne c o u n ts o f

ille g a l tr a n s p o rt a tio n o f a lie n s , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a )(1 )(A )(ii). A lth o u g h T a p ia- L e o n a ss e rts h e o bjec ted to th e fa c tu a l b a sis under l y i ng t hes e convi ct i ons , hi s obj ect i on r el at ed onl yt o w hetherhi s conduct i nvol ved cl andes t i ne movem entorconce al m ent . H e di d notcl ai m , nordoes he cl ai m on app eal , t hat the co nd uct unde rl y i ng his con vict i on s w as for the p urpose of as s i s t i ng onl yhi s i m m edi at e fa m i l ym ember s . T api a- L eon’ s convi ct i ons for i l l egal t r ans por t at i on of al i ens t her efor e qual i fyas al i en s m uggl i ng offe ns es under U SSG § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( vi i ) , and the di s tr i ctcour tdi d noterri n appl y i ng the six tee n -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t.-7-

F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, T apia- L eon ’s sent ence is AFF I RM ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge