Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40250 UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t if f - A pp el l ee v. J ES US DAMI AN GUERRERO- PA RRA D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas N o. 7: 07- C R
- 1286- 1 B ef ore K IN G , G A R W O O D , an d D AV IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IAM: * D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t Jes u s D a m i a n G u erre ro-P a rraplea d edgu i l ty to c o n s p i r a c yt o t r a n s p o r tund o c u m e n t e da l i e n s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C. § 132 4( a) ( 1) (A) (v) (I) , (A) (i i) , an d ( B ) (i) , a nd wass e nt e n ced t o t w en t y- f ou r m on t h s’ i m pr i s o nm e nt . G ue r r e r o - Par r a no w m o ve s — w i t ho ut governm ent o ppo s i t i o n— t h at t hi s c o ur tv ac at e hi s s e nt e nc e , r e m andf o rr e s e nt e nc i ng, a nd i ssue t h e m an da t e im m edi ately. F or the f ol l ow i n g reasons, w e gran tG u errer oPar r a’ s m o t i o n. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D May 8, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2 I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND In D e c e m b e r2 0 0 7 , J e s u s D a m ia n G u e r r e r o -P a r r aw a s ch a r g e d , in tera lia , w i t h one coun tof consp i racy to tr an sportthree u n docu m en t ed ali en s i n vi ol ati on of 8 U . S . C . § 1324 ( a) ( 1) (A) (v) (I) , (A) (i i) , an d ( B ) (i) . G u errer o- P arra pl ead ed gu i l t y, an d the presentence report(“ P S R ” ) assi gn e d a to talof fen se l evelof t h i rt een w i t h a cr i m i n alhi st ory cat egory of IV . D u ri n g sentenci n g, t h e di st ri ct c o u r t a s s e s s e d , in tera lia , o n e c r im in a l h is to r yp o in t fo ram is d e m e a n o ra s s a u lt und erTexas l aw des c r ibed i n para gr aph 31 o f t he PS R an d a not herc r i m i nal hi s t o r y po i ntf

o ram i s de m e ano ra s s aultund e rTe xa s l aw de s c r ibe d i n p a r a gr ap h 32 o f t he PS R . Th e di st r i c tc o ur tul t i m at ely s ent enc ed G uer r er o- Parr a t o t w ent yf o urm o nt hs ’i m pr i s o nm e nt , a tt he l o w e re nd o f t he a ppli c ab l e r ang e i n t he U n ite dS ta te s S e n te n c in gG u id e lin e s (th e “G u id e lin e s ”). G u errer o- P arra t i m ely ap pea l ed. I nli eu of a reply bri ef, G u errer o- P arra f i l ed an U n opp osed M ot i on t o V acate th e Sen t en ce B e low , to R em an d f or R e s e n te n c in g , a n dto Is s u e th e M a n d a te Im m e d ia te ly . I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h i s c ou rt ’ s r evi ew of a sentence b e g i n s w i t h w h et h er th e di st ri ctcourt com m i t t e d a ny “ s i gnif i c antpr o c e dur ale r r o r , s uc h a s fail i ng t o c al c ul at e ( or i m pro per ly c al c ul at i ng) t he G ui deli nes r ange, t r eat i ng t he G u i d eli nes as m andat ory, fail i ng t o c ons i dert he 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac tors, s el ec t i ng a s e nt e nc e b as e d o n c l e ar ly e r r o ne o us fac t s , o rfail i ng t o a de qua t e ly e xp l ai n t he ch ose n sen ten ce.” G all v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S .C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ). U n d e rth is procedu ralprong , “ [f ] i n di n gs of

factusedi n cal cul ati n g t h e G u i del i n es r an ge are r e v ie w e dfo rc l e a re r r o r , w h ile in te r p r e ta tio n o f th eG u id e lin e s th e m s e lv e s is r e vi e w e d de no vo . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. F ernan d ez , 55 9 F .3d 3 0 3 , 319 ( 5th C i r. 20 09 ) . I f

t he s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i o n i s pr o c e dur ally s o und, w e t he n c o ns i de r“t he sub st an tive reasona b len e ss of th e se n te n ce i m posedun der anabu se- of

- di scr eti on3

s ta n d a r d .” Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 517 F. 3d 751, 764 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (in te r n a l cit a tio n s o m itt e d). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON In his m ot i on , G u errer o- P arra f i rstargu es th at th e di st ri ctcourt m i sa ppl i ed § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) of t he G ui deli nes w hen i tas se ssed a n addit i onal c r im in a l h is to r yp o in t b a s e do n p a r a g r a p h 3 2 o f th e P S R . In r e le v a n t p a r t, th is provi si on st ates: If t h e defen da n tha s m u l t i pl e pri or s e n t en ces, deter m i n e w h et h er t h ose s en t en ces are coun t ed sepa rat ely or as a si n gl e sentence. P ri or s en t en ces al w ays are coun t ed sepa rat ely if the sentences w ere i m posedf

or of fen ses t h at w ere s epa rat ed byan i n t erve n ing arrest (i . e., the de fen d a n t i s ar reste dfo rt h e f i rst off en se p ri or to com m i tti n gt h e s eco n doff en se). If

the re is no i n terv en i n g a rres t, pri or s en t en ces are coun t ed sepa rat ely u n l ess (A) t h e sentences resu l tedf

rom off en ses con tain edi n the sam e ch a rg i n g in stru m en t; or( B ) t he s ent enc es w er e i m pos ed o n t he s am e day . U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) . I n t h e present case, t h e recor d i s un di spu t ed that th ere w as no i n t ervening arrestbetw een G u errer o- P arra’ s t w o m i sdem ean or of fen ses a s d e s c r ib e di n p a r a g r a p h s 3 1 a n d3 2 o f t h e PS R. T h e s e n t e n c e s f o rt h e s e t wo m i sdem ean or of

fen ses w ere al so i m posedon the sam e day . Th e distr ict court th u s c o n tr a v e n e d th e p la in la n g u a g e o f § 4A 1 .2 (a )(2 ) o f th e G u id e lin e s w h e n it assessed a n a dd i t i on alcri m i n alh i st ory poi n tbased on t h e l att er m i sdem ean or o ffe n s e . S e c o nd, G ue r r e r o - Par r a c o nt e nds t hatt he m i s de m e ano ra s s aultf rom pa r agr ap h 3 2 i s no ta“ c r i m e o f v i o l e nc e ” c o unt ab l e unde r§ 4A1. 1(f ) o f t he G u id e lin e s . In re le v a n t p a r t, th e G u id e lin e s s ta te th a t ad is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld

“ [ a ] d d 1 p o i n tf

o re a c h p r i o rs e n t e n c e r e s u l t i n gf r o m a conv i ct i on of

a cri m e of vi olencet h at di d n otreceive an y poi n t s” u n der previ ou s G u i del i n es provi si on s. S ee U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 1(f ) ( em phasi s added) . A “ c r i m e o f vi ol enc e”i s def

i n ed as

“ an y of fen se un der federalor st ate l aw , pu n i sha bl e by i m pri sonm en tf or a t erm4

exceedi n g on e year, t h at . . . ha s as an el em en tt h e u se , att em pted u se, or t h r e a t e n e du s e o f

p h y s i c a lf

o r c e a g a i n s tt h e p e r s o n o f a n o t h e r . ” U. S . S . G. § 4 B 1 .2 (a ). T e x a s la w is c le a r th a t G u e r r e r o -P a r r a ’ s o ffe n s e s d o n o t fa ll in to th is c a te g o r y . S ee T EX . P ENAL C ODE§ 1 2 .21 (2 ) (“A n in d ivid u a l adju d g e dg u iltyof a C l ass Am i sdem ean or s h al lbe pu n i shed by . . . confi n em en t i n j ai l f or a ter m not t o e xc ee d one year. . . . ”) ; § 22. 01( a) ( 1) ( def i ni ng as a Cl as s Am i sde m eanoran o ffe n s e w h e r e ap e r s o n “in te n tio n a lly , k n o w in g ly , o rre c k le s s lyca u s e s b o d ily inju r yto a n o th e r”); Un i t ed S t ate s v. V i l legas- Hernan d ez , 4 6 8 F . 3 d 8 7 4 , 88 4 ( 5 th C i r . 2006) (“ Texas l aw s pec if i c al ly c at ego r i ze s an as sa ul tunder § 2 2. 01( a) ( 1) as a C l ass Am i sdem ean or, w h i ch m ay be pu n i shedb y i m pri sonm en tf or not m ore th a n o n e y e a r”). Th e di st r i c tc our tt hus er r ed be c auseitc oul d not cou n t t he addit i onal cri m i n alhi st ory poi n t u n der ei t h er § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) or § 4A 1. 1(f ) of t h e G u i del i n es. T h i s er ror i s not h arm l ess becau se, bu t f or t h i s m i sapp l i cat i on of t h e G u i del i n es, G uer r er o- Parr a ’ s c r i m i nalhi st ory c at ego r y w oul d have bee n I I I ( an i m pri sonm en tran ge of 1 8–2 4 m on t h s) inst eadof IV( an i m pri sonm en trang e of 2 4

– 3 0 m o n th s ). F i n al ly, G u errer o- P arra argu es th at th e m an da t e m u stbe i ssued i m m e di at e ly. W e agr e e . G ue r r e r o - Par r a has be e n i n fe de r al c us t o dy si n ce N ovem ber 15, 200 7, an d l i kely w ou l d h ave been r el eased bynow w ere itnot f or t he e r r ori n hi s se nt enc e. H e i s c urr ent ly sc hedul ed t o b e r el eas ed o n A ugust12, 20 09 . Thus , f

ur t he rde l aym e ans t hatG ue r r e r o - Par r a w i l lno trec e ivea ny ben ef i tf rom a rem an d f

or a n ew sen t en ce; h e requi res an i m m edi ate i ssui n g of t h e m an da t e. IV . C ONC L US I ON Forthef o r e go ing r e as o ns , G ue rr e ro- P arra’ s s en t en ce i s VA C AT ED a nd the c a s e is R E M A N D E D to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo rre s e n te n c in g . T h e m a n d a te s h a ll i s s ue f o r t hw i t h.5

M O TI O N G RA N TE D . Se nt e nc e VA CA TE D . Cas e RE M AN D ED t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf

o rr e s e nt e nc i ng. M and at e s halli s s ue f o r t hw i t h.