FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 16, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 74 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 03 98 -SDM- TGW -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RODOLFO ESCOBEDO-QUEZADA , a.k .a. Ric ard o M al do na do , a.k .a. Jo se Diaz -Guti erre z, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re MAR CUS, PRYOR andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ro do lfo Esco be do -Qu ezad a ap pe al s h is sen te nc es an d c on vi ct io ns forreen te rin g the Uni te d S ta te s i ll eg al ly, 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a), an d e nt eri ng th e Uni te d

St at es il le ga ll y , id . §§ 13 25 (a)( 1) , 13 29 . Esco be do -Qu ezad a arg ue s, fo r th e fi rs t ti m e, th athi s m

ul ti pl e p un is hm en ts vi ol at e th e Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t. Esc ob ed o- Que zad a al so arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e o f 20 m on th s of im pr is on m en t fo r hi s i ll eg al reen try is p ro cedur al ly andsubs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . W e aff

irm Esco be do -Qu ezad a’s se nt en ces , andwe va cat e th e writ te n ju dg m en t an d re m an d t o c orrecta cl eri cal erro r. The di stric t co urt d idno t err, m uc h l es s p la in ly err, by im po si ng two term s of im pr is on m en t. Esc ob ed o- Que zad a’s cri m es “ co ns ti tu te [] a vio la ti on of two di st in ctst atut ory

pro vi si on s” be cau se “ each pro vi si on requi res pro of of afact whi chth e o th er d oe s n ot .” Blo ckbu rg er v . Uni te d S tate s, 2 84 U.S. 29 9, 3 04 , 52 S. Ct . 18 0, 1 82 (19 32 ). Esco be do -Qu ezad a p le ad edgu il ty to re en te rin g the Uni te d St at es il le ga ll y

aft er h av in g b eende po rte d thr ee t im es pre vi ou sl y , 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a), an d t o e nt eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s “ ata ti m e an d p la ce o th er tha n a s de si gn at edby im

m ig rat io n o ffi cers ,” id . § 1 32 5( a). Bec au se th e g ov ern m en t co ul d pr os ecu te Esco be do -Qu ezad a und er b ot h s ta tu te s, h e “ waiv edhi s d oubl e jeop ardy arg um en t b y

pl ead in g g ui lty .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sm ith, 5 32 F.3d11 25 , 11 29 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y vary in g upwardfro m

th e 2advi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge to sen te nc e Esc ob ed o- Que zad a to term of 2 0 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t fo r hi s i ll eg al reen try tha t wo ul d ru n c on curren t wi th a te rm of 6 m on th s fo r en te rin g the Uni te d S ta te s i ll eg al ly. Esco be do -Qu ezad a was de po rte d fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s i n J anuary an d F eb ru ary of

19 99 an d a ga ininMarc h 2 00 3; he pl ead edgu il ty to dru g c rimes inDecem be r 20 03 an d No ve m

be r 20 04 ; an d h e ha s o ut st an di ng warran ts forhi s arres t i n F lo rid a an d Il li no is . The d is tri ctco urt de ci de d t o v ary up wardbe cau se of Es co be do -Qu ezad a’s “ di sm is si ve att itud e to ward s the laws of the Uni te d S ta te s” go ve rn in g “ imm ig rat io n and. . . ot he r be ha vi or ,” th e la ck“ of

effe ct ” o f pr ev io us withi n- gu id el in es sen te nc es , hi s pr ev io us ele ct io n o f aneig ht -m on th sen te nc e o f im pr is on m en t “ ov er m ak in g h is ownway [on pro ba ti on ] fo r si x o r ei gh t m on th s,” andhi s “pe rs is te nc e in reen te rin g re pe at ed ly and. . . rem ai ni ng inth e Uni te d S ta te s fo r a p ro tra ct edti m e.” The di stric t co urt re as on ab ly det erm in edth atth e advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge of 2 to 8 m on th s wo ul d n otad equa te ly reflec t Es co be do -Qu ezad a’s cri m in al hi st ory or

“ ach ie ve th e st atut ory

pu rp os es of s en te nc in g,” see Uni te d S ta te s v . Shaw, 56 0 F.3 d 1 23 0, 1 23 7– 40 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), an d tha t a s en te nc e o f 20 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t was ne ces sary to “pr om ot e res pe ctforth e la w,” pr ov id e ad equa te pu ni sh m en t, d et er s im il ar fu tu re cr im es , andpro te ctth e p ub li c, se e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Esc ob ed o- Que zad a’s se nt en ces are re as on ab le . 3W e n ot ic e a cl eri cal erro r inth e wri tt enjud gm en t. The writ te n ju dg m en t

st at es m is ta ke nl y

th atEsco be do -Qu ezad a p le ad edgu il ty to two co un ts of i ll eg al reen try. Becau se “ itis fun da m en ta l erro r fo r a co urt t o e nt er a ju dg m en t o f co nv ic ti on ag ai ns t a d efen da ntwho ha s n otbe ench arg ed , tri ed , or fo un d g ui lty of th e cri m e rec it edinth e jud gm en t,” Un it edSta te s v . Jam es , 64 2 F .3d13 33 , 13 43 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) , we vac at e th e wri tt en jud gm en t an d re m an d fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o e nt er a n ew jud gm en t s ta ti ng th at Esco be do -Qu ezad a p le ad edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f il le ga l re en try andon e co un t o f il le ga l en try int o the Uni te d S ta te s. W e AFFIRMEsco be do -Qu ezad a’s se nt en ces , andwe REMAND for co rrec ti on of the writ te n ju dg m en t.

4