# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 3- 16 07

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

Fern an do Esp in oz a

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Sio ux Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 19 , 20 13
Fil ed : M arch 21 , 20 14 (Co rrec te d M arch 21 , 20 14 )

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BYE, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

A fed eral jury fo un d Fern an do Esp in oz a gu il ty of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0

gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e. Esp in oz a fil ed a pe ti ti on fo r r e l i e f f r o m hi s

co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 al le gi ng a nu m be r of di ffer en t

gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f, in cl ud in g th e cl ai m th at tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng toob

ject to a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t un de r 21 U.S.C. § 85 1( a)(1 ). The di st ric t co ur t 1

fo un d no gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f. Esp in oz a ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's ru li ng

. W e affi rm

.

I

Esp in oz a was in di ct ed fo r co ns pi rac y t o d i s t rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of

m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 1( b) (1 )(A).

Mo reo ve r, th e in di ct m en t ch arg ed th at Esp in oz a ha d pr ev io us ly be en co nv ic te d of a
fel on y dr ug of

fen se , th us do ub li ng th e m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce un de r 21 U.S.C.
§ 8 51 (a)( 1)

.

At tri a l

, Es pi no za ad m it te d to pu rch as in g m et ha m ph et am in e an d th e

go ve rn m en t pu t on ev id en ce sh owi ng Esp in oz a was pa rt of a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e. Add it io na ll y , Esp in oz a st ip ul at ed to ha vi ng a pr io r fel on y dru g

co nv ic ti on fro m 19 92

, whi ch pr ov id ed th e ba si s fo r th e § 85 1 en ha nc em en t.

Unn ot ic ed by th e at to rn ey s or th e co ur t, th e § 85 1 en ha nc em en t no ti ce co nt ai ne d an

erro r in co rrec tl y li st in g th e Dis tri ct of So ut h Dak ot a as th e di st ric t of co nv ic ti on

rat he r t h a n th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa whe re Esp in oz a's co nv ic ti on act ua ll y

oc cu rred

. Esp in oz a's at to rn ey di d no t ob je c t t o t h e § 85 1 en ha nc em en t no r di d th e

go ve rn m en t s eek to am en d t he § 8 51 no ti ce at an y po in t.

The jury fo un d Es p i n oz a gu il ty on bo th su bs ect io ns of th e in di ct m en t. The

di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Esp in oz a to th e m an da t o r y m in im um of 24 0 m on th s of

i mpri so nm en t, ba se d in pa rt on a pr e-s en te nc e rep or t (PSR ), whi ch co rrec tl y l i s t e d
Esp in oz a's pr io r fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti on as be in g fro m th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa. Esp in oz a ti m el y fil ed an ap pe al

. Thi s Cou rt affi rm ed th e co nv ic ti on

. Uni te d St at es

v. Es pi no za, 2 82 F. App 'x 5 04 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

The Hon or ab le Don al d E. O'Bri en , Uni te d S t a te s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-Esp in oz a fil ed a ti m el y pr o se m ot io n to va cat e, se t a s i d e , or co rrec t hi s

se nt en ce un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, al le gi ng se ve nt een gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f. The di st ric t

co ur t app oi nt ed co un se l, who su bm it te d a su pp le m en t to th e § 22 55 pe ti ti on ad di ng

a cl ai m th at tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to ob ject to th e al le ge dl y im

pr op er § 8 51 en ha nc em en t.

Afte r co nd uc ti ng ev id en ti ary he ari ng s, th e d i st ric t co ur t en te red an or de r
di sm is si ng al l of Esp in oz a's cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of

ap pe al ab il it y

on all cla im s.

II

Esp in oz a ap pe al s th e di st ric t cou rt' s den ia l of § 22 55 rel ie f. Esp in oz a arg ue s

tri al c o u n s e l w a s in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to ob ject to th e § 85 1 en ha nc em en t, whi ch
Esp in oz a arg ue s was im

pr op er d ue to lac k o f pr op er n ot ic e. 2

The Eig ht h Ci rcu it r e v i e w s a di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of a § 22 55 pe ti ti on de

no vo . Orti z v . Uni te d S ta te s, 6 64 F.3d 11 51 , 11 64 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

Tit le 21 U.S.C. § 85 1( a) req ui res t h e g o v e r nm en t to pr ov id e no ti ce of th e

se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t be fo re tri al

, bu t al so pr ov id es th at "[c ]leri cal m is ta ke s in th e

in f o r mat i o n m ay be am en de d at an y ti m e pr io r to th e pr on ou nc em en t of se nt en ce."

Esp in oz a, rel y in g on Uni te d St at es v. Ram ire z, 50 1 F.3 d 12 37

, 12 39 (1 1t h Ci r. 2

20 07 ), al so arg ue s th e al le ge dl y in accu rat e § 85 1 no ti ce de pr iv ed th e di st ric t co ur t of juri sd ic ti on to im

po se an en ha nc ed se nt en ce. Howev er, th is co ur t ha s sp eci fic al ly
h e ld "t he pr os ecu ti on 's no nc om pl ia nc e wit h § 85 1( a)(1 ) do es no t affe ct th e c o u r t ' s juri sd ic ti on ." Uni te d St at es v. Mo or in g, 28 7 F.3 d 72 5, 72 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). "'Th us , th e on ly qu es ti on th at le gi ti m at el y ari se s fr o m t h e pr os ecu ti on 's [fai lu re to co m pl y wit h § 85 1( a)(1 )] co nc ern s th e co ur t's au th or it y to im po se an en ha nc ed se nt en ce. Thi s is si m pl y no t a qu es ti on of su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on .'" Id

. at 72 7- 28 (q uo ti ng Pro u v. Un it ed Sta te s, 1 99 F.3d 37 , 45 (1s t Ci r. 19 99 )).

-3

-21 U.S.C. § 85 1( a)(1 ). Cl eri cal m is ta ke s are erro rs "wh ere t he go ve rn m en t's in it ia l

in fo rm at io n s ti ll ga ve th e d efen da nt reas on ab le no ti ce of the go ve rn m en t's in te nt to

rel y on a pa rt ic ul ar co nv ic ti on ." Uni te d St at es v. Hig gi ns , 71 0 F.3 d 83 9, 8 4 4 ( 8 t h

Ci r.) cert

. de ni ed

, 13 4 S. Ct

. 34 3 (2 01 3) ( i n t ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e

al so Uni te d St at es v. St ur di va nt

, 51 3 F.3 d 79 5, 80 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) ("C or rect in g th e

st at e [o f co nv ic ti on ] is a cl eri cal erro r

. . . ."). The § 85 1 no ti ce req ui rem en t is m ean t

to pr ov id e a de fen da nt wit h "n ot ic e of th e p rio r co nv ic ti on , th e eff ect it wou ld ha ve

on th e m ax im

um se nt en ce, an d an op po rtu ni ty to di sp ut e th e co nv ic ti on ." Uni te d

St at es v. Tim le y , 44 3 F.3 d 61 5, 62 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). St ric t co m pl ia nc e wit h § 85 1 is

no t r e q u ire d, rat he r th e in di ct m en t m us t on ly pr ov id e "re as on ab le no ti ce of th e

Gov ern m en t's in te nt to rel y on a pa rti cu la r co nv ic ti on an d a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty

t o be he ard ." Uni te d St at es v. Cu ria le

, 39 0 F.3 d 10 75

, 10 76 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )

. " I n

ap pl y in g th e st at ut e's req ui rem en ts

, co ur ts are care fu l no t to el ev at e fo rm ov er

su bs ta nc e." Id . at 1 07 7.

Esp in oz a no w arg ue s co un se l was in effe ct i v e i n fai li ng to ob ject to th e
de fic ie nt § 85 1 no ti ce. It is un di sp ut ed Esp in oz a ha d on ly on e pr io r dr ug fel on y an d

th e in di ct m en t li st ed co rrec tl y th e cri m e, th e da te of co nv ic ti on , an d th e so ve rei gn of

co nv ic ti on

. The on ly erro r rel at ed to th e fed eral di st ric t co ur t in whi ch Esp in oz a was

co nv ic te d. W e fin d th a t

, much li ke a m is ta ke as to st at e of co nv ic ti on , St ur di va nt

, 51 3 F.3 d at 80 4, th e m is ta ke as to th e di st ric t in whi c h t h e co nv ic ti on oc cu rred is a
cl eri cal erro r whe re th e in di ct m en t "s ti ll ga ve th e de fen da nt reas on ab le no ti ce of th e

go ve rn m en t ' s i n t e nt to rel y on a pa rt ic ul ar co nv ic ti on ." Hig gi ns , 71 0 F.3 d at 84 4.

In fact

, Esp in oz a st ip ul at ed to ha vi ng a 19 92 fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti on , fu rth er sh owi ng Esp in oz a was on no ti ce of th e go ve rn m en t's in te nt to rel y on hi s so l e f e lo ny dr ug

co nv ic ti on for pu rp os es of t he § 8 51 en ha nc em en t.

W hi le th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to fil e th e req ui red su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t to

co rrec t th e cl eri cal erro r, th e PSR, as ad op te d by t h e d is tri ct co ur t at se nt en ci ng ,

co rrec tl y li st ed Esp in oz a's pr io r co nv ic ti on , fu rth er pu tt in g Esp in oz a on no ti ce. "Th e

-4

-erro r in th e § 85 1 no ti ce di d no t de pr iv e [Esp in oz a] of no ti ce ab ou t whi ch co nv ic ti on

th e go ve rn m en t in te nd ed to us e, th e en ha nc em en t of hi s se nt en ce fo r whi ch th ey were

as ki ng , or an op po rtu ni ty to di sp ut e th e co nv ic ti on

. " H i g g i n s , 71 0 F.3 d at 84 4.

The refo re, to fin d th e § 85 1 no ti ce was in su ffi ci en t wou ld be to im pr op erl y el ev at e

th e fo rm of § 85 1 o ve r it s s ub st an ce. Cu ria le , 39 0 F .3d at 1 07 7.

Bec au se th e § 85 1 no ti ce was ad eq ua te , Esp in oz a h as fai le d to sh ow hi s tri al

co un se l was i n e f

f e c t i ve fo r fai li ng to ob

ject to su ch no ti ce. Uni te d St at es v. Kell y , 58 1 F.2 d 15 2, 15 3 (8t h Ci r. 19 78 ) ("P et it io ne r's rem ai ni ng co nt en ti on of in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l m

us t fai l, si nc e th ere is no m eri t to th e al le ga ti on s of erro r up on
whi ch th e co nt en ti on is pre m is ed ."). 3

III

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

W e ha ve ex am in ed al l ot he r is su es rai se d by Esp in oz a bu t fin d no ot he r cl ai m s 3

m eri t di sc us si on

. The refo re, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t on th os e is su es wit ho ut

co m m en t. Se e 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

-5

-