## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 15 17

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s

* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

v. * Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. *

Hect or Vasq ue z-Gu ti erre z, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 17 , 20 12

Fi le d: May 3, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

PER CURI AM.

Hect or Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z pl ed g u il ty wit ho ut a pl ea ag reem en t to il le ga l

reen try fo ll owi ng rem ov al in vi o l a t i o n o f 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a). The di st ric t co ur t 1

de te rm in ed th at Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z was su bjec t to a m ax im um se nt en ce of 20 y ears ’

im pr is on m en t b ecau se hi s il le ga l reen try was su bs eq ue nt to a co nv ic ti on fo r an

ag gr av at ed fel on y , se e 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (b )(2 ), cal cu la te d a gu id el in es ran ge of 41 to

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.51 m on th s, an d se nt en ced Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z to 41 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Vas qu ezGut ie rrez ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by su bjec ti ng hi m

to th e po te nt ia l 20 -y ear m ax im um se nt en ce by cl as si fy in g hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on as an

ag gr av at ed fel on y . Becau se an y su ch cla ss ifi cat io n e rro r was ha rm le ss , we affi rm

.

In Ju ly 19 99

, th e n

- 1 8

- year-o ld Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z was ch arg ed wit h se xu al

ab us e in th e th ird de gr ee fo r ha vi ng se xu al in te rco ur se wit h a 13 -y e a r

- o ld gi rl.

Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z pl ed gu il ty to th e le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se of as sa ul t wit h in te nt to

co m m it se xu al ab us e cau si ng no bo di ly in jury in vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de § 70 9.1 1
(“ Io wa co nv ic ti on ”), an d th e co ur t im po se d a two -y ear su sp en de d se nt en ce on Mar ch

27

, 20 00

. Tha t sa m e d a y, t he Bu reau of Im m ig rat io n an d Cu st om s Enfo rcem en t
(“ ICE”) s e rv ed Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z wit h a Not ic e of In te nt to Is su e a Fi na l

2

Adm in is tra ti ve Remo v a l Ord er. The Not ic e al le ge d th at Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z was

rem ov ab le ba se d on hi s Io wa co nv ic ti on an d hi s pr ev io us il le ga l en try in to th e Uni te d

St at es

. ICE rem ov ed Vas qu ez- G ut ie rrez on Apr il 3, 20 00

. Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z

il le ga ll y reen te red th e Uni te d S ta te s an d was rem ov ed ag ai n i n 2 00 3.

In Ju ly 20 10

, Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z w a s a r r e st ed ag ai n in Io wa fo r pu bl ic

in to xi cat io n an d ad m it te d th at he ha d il le ga ll y en te red th e co un try a th i r d t i me in

20 09

. Bas ed on th is m os t recen t ent ry , Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z was ch arg ed wit h il le ga l

reen try fo ll owi ng rem ov al su bs eq ue nt to a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r an ag gr av at ed fel on y

. Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z m ov ed to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t, argu in g th at th e 20 00 rem ov al

or d e r w a s in va li d be cau se th e Io wa co nv ic ti on di d no t qu al ify as an ag gr av at ed

fel on y

. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (d ). The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at

th e Io wa co nv ic ti on qu al ifi ed as an ag gr av at ed fel on y

. Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z

su bs eq ue nt ly pl ed gu il ty but arg ue d a t s en te nc in g t ha t h e was no t s ub ject t o th e 20

-

y ear m ax im

um se nt en ce un de r § 13 26 (b )(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t reject e d V a s q ue zThe n k no wn as th e Im m ig rat io n a nd Natu ral iz at io n S erv ic e. 2

-2

-Gut ie rrez ’s arg um en t an d im po se d a se nt en ce at th e bo tt om of th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es

ran ge , 41 m on th s.

On ap pe al

, Vas qu ez-Gu ti e r r e z co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

cl as si fy in g th e Io wa co nv ic ti on as an ag gr av at ed fel on y fo r pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng , th us erro ne ou sl y su bjec ti ng hi m to a po te nt ia l 20 -y ear m ax im um se nt en ce. He arg ue s

th at th e Io wa co nv ic ti on do es no t co ns ti t ut e a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r 18 U.S.C.

§ 1 6, se e Jo hn so n v . Uni te d S ta te s , 55 9 U.S. --- , 13 0 S. Ct . 1 26 5 (2 01 0) , o r “ se xu al

ab us e of a m in or ,” a n d t h u s i s no t an ag gr av at ed fel on y

. Se e 8 U.S.C.

§ 11 01 (a)( 43 )(A), (F). Howev er, we ne ed no t de ci d e t h i s qu es ti on as we co nc lu de

th at an y su ch erro r was ha rm le ss in th is cas e. Se e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 52 (a) (es ta bl is hi ng

th at an y erro r th at do es no t af

fect su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts m

us t b e d is reg ard ed ).

Eve n if th e Io wa co nv ic ti on do es no t qu al ify as an ag gr av at ed fel on y , Vas qu ezGut ie rrez wou l d s t i ll be su bjec t to a 10 -y ear m ax im um se nt en ce fo r il le ga l reen try

fo ll owi ng rem ov al su bs eq ue nt to a fel on y co nv ic ti on

. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (b )(1 ).

Alt ho ug h th e Io wa co nv ic ti on is cl as si fie d by t h e S t a t e of Io wa as an ag gr av at ed

m is de mea n or , it carr ie s a m ax im um se nt en ce of two y ears ’ im pr is on m en t. Uni te d

St at es v. Qui r o g a , 55 4 F.3 d 11 50

, 11 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th at a co nv ic ti on

un de r Io wa Co de § 70 9.1 1 co ns ti tu te s an ag gr av at ed fel on y fo r se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

p u rp os es ). The Io wa co nv ic ti on th us fal ls wit hi n th e pl ai n m ean in g o f t h e w o r d

fel on y

. Se e Ca ra ch ur i-Ro se nd o v. Hol de r , 56 0 U.S. ---, 13 0 S. Ct

. 25 77

, 25 85 (2 01 0)
(“ A ‘felo ny,’ we ha ve co m e to un de rs ta nd

, is a ‘seri ou s cri m e us u[ al ly] pu ni sh ab le by

im pr is on m en t fo r m or e th an on e y ear or by de at h.’” (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng

Bl ack ’s Law D i c t io na ry 69 4 (9 th ed

. 20 09 ))); se e al so 18 U.S.C. § 35 59 (a)
(es ta bl is hi ng pr es um

pt io n th at fed era l cri m es carr y in g a m ax im um se nt en ce

ex ceed in g on e y ear of im pr is on m en t are fel on ie s)

. Mo reo ve r, Vas qu e z -Gu ti erre z 3

Thi s de fin it io n is co ns is te nt wit h Co ng res s’s us ag e of th e wor d fel on y in Tit le 3

8 of th e Uni te d St a t e s C o d e , se e 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 43 )(F)

, (G) (p ro vi di ng th at a

-3

-of

fers no m ean i ng fu l arg um en t as to why th e Io wa co nv ic ti on wou ld no t be

co ns id ered a fel on y co nv ic ti on wit hi n th e m ean in g of 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (b )(1 ) an d ha s

th us waiv ed th e arg um en t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. St an ko

, 49 1 F.3d 40 8, 41 5 (8t h Cir.

20 07 ) (h ol di ng th at a cl ai m was waiv ed be cau se it was no t m ean in gf ul ly arg ue d in th e

op en in g bri ef). Be cau se Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z’s 41 -m on th se nt en ce is well wit hi n th e

ot he rwis e a p p l i cab le st at ut or y m ax im um fo r un la wfu l reen try fo ll owi ng rem ov al

su bs eq ue nt to a fel on y co nv ic ti on , th e in crea se d po te nt ia l st at ut or y m ax im um di d no t

affe ct Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d an y su ch erro r is ha r ml es s. Se e 4

Uni te d S ta te s v. Gar ci a- Gui za r , 23 4 F.3d 48 3, 48 8- 89 (9 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (h ol di ng th at

a n Ap p r e nd i erro r in crea si ng th e m ax im um se nt en ce fro m twen ty y ears to li f e

im pr is on m en t “ ha d n o effe ct ” on th e 16 8- m on th se nt en ce th e de fen da nt rece iv ed

whe re th e de fen da nt was se nt en ced at th e lo w en d of th e gu id el in es ran g e a n d th e

act ua l s en te nc e was “ su bs ta nt ia ll y les s” th an th e co rrec t s ta tu to ry m ax im um ).

Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z al so co nt en ds th at

, if th e Io wa co nv ic ti on is no t an

ag gr av at ed fel on y , we sh ou ld rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t to reco ns id er fo r pu rp os es

cri m e of vi ol en ce, th eft of fen se , or bu rg la ry of

fen se is an ag gr av at ed fel on y if th e

te rm of im

pr is on m en t is at le as t on e y ear)

, as well as it s us ag e of th e wor d ge ne ral ly

in th e cri m in al co nt ex t, se e 21 U.S.C. § 80 2( 44 ) (d efi ni ng “ fel on y dr ug of fen se ” as

a dr ug cr i me “ pu ni sh ab le by i m pr is on m en t fo r m or e th an on e y ear” ); Uni te d St at es

v

. Gar re tt , 6 48 F.3 d 61 8, 62 1- 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at to be a “ fel o n ” i n

po ss es si on a fir earm a de fen da nt m us t ha ve “p r e v i o u s ly be en co nv ic te d of a cri m e

pu ni sh ab le by im

pr is on m en t o f m or e th an on e y ear” ).

Alt ho ug h Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z ob jecte d be fo re th e di st ric t c o u rt to a 16 -le ve l 4

in crea s e t o h i s o ffen se le ve l fo r be in g de po rte d aft er co nv ic ti on fo r a “ cri m e of
vi ol en ce,” se e U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A), he do es no t ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s
cal cu la ti on of th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge on ap p e al

. Perh ap s th is is
b e c au se a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” fo r th e pu rp os es of th e gu id el in es en ha nc eme n t
in cl ud es st at ut or y rap e, se xu al ab us e of a m in or , an d “ an y ot he r of fen se

. . . th at ha s

as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce aga in st th e

pe rs on of a no th er.” U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 cm t. n .1(B )(i ii ).

-4

-of se nt en ci ng it s de ni al of hi s m ot i on to di sm is s ba se d on a co ll at eral at ta ck on th e

20 00 rem ov al or de r. An al ie n ch arg ed wit h il le ga l reen try fo ll owi ng rem ov al m ay

co ll at eral ly a t t ack th e va li di ty of hi s rem ov al or de r in a su bs eq ue nt cri m in al

pr os ecu ti on if he de m on st rat es th at th e r e mo v al pr oc eed in g was so de fect iv e as to

effe ct iv el y fo recl os e hi s rig ht to ob ta in jud ic ia l rev ie w of hi s rem ov al or de r an d “ th at

he su ff e r e d a c tu al pr ejud ic e fro m th os e de fect s.” Uni te d St at es v. Pere z- Pon ce , 6 2

F.3 d 11 20

, 11 22 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ). Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z do es no t id en ti fy an y se nt en ci ng

pr ejud ic e he su ffer ed in th is cas e fro m th e pu rp or te d m is cl as si fic at io n of th e Io wa

co nv ic ti on as an ag gr av at ed fel on y fo r th e pu rp os es of hi s 20 00 rem ov al pr oc eed in g.

As di sc us se d ab ov e, ev en if th e Io wa c o n v ic ti on is no t an ag gr av at ed fel on y , Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z’s se nt en ce was well wit hi n th e 10 -y ear st a t ut or y m ax im um

se nt en ce fo r il le ga l re en try fol lo win g re m ov al su bs eq ue nt to a fel on y co nv ic ti on

. 5

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

To th e ex te nt Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z no w se ek s to in va li da te th e 20 00 de po rta ti on 5

or de r as th e pr ed ic at e fo r hi s co nv ic ti on , he waiv ed an y rig ht to ch al le ng e th e rem ov al

or de r f o r pu rp os es of hi s co nv ic ti on whe n he en te red an un co nd it io na l gu il ty p le a. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Li mley

, 51 0 F.3 d 82 5, 82 7 (8t h Cir. 20 07 ) (“ A va li d gu il ty pl ea is an ad m is si on of gu il t th at waiv es al l no n- juri sd ic ti on al de fect s an d de fen se s” an d
is “ pr es um

pt iv el y un co nd it io na l.”)

. Vas qu ez-Gu ti erre z d o e s n o t ch al le ng e th e

va li di ty of hi s gu il ty pl ea or as se rt th at th e pl ea was co nd it io na l an d ha s th us waiv ed

th e arg um en t. Se e S ta nk

o , 49 1 F .3d at 4 15

.

-5

-