### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40242 UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. LUI S ENRI QUE RUI Z

- ARRIAGA D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d W IE N E R an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. E D ITH H . JO N E S , C h i ef Ju dg e: L u i s E n ri qu e R u i z- A rri aga pl ed gu i l t y t o il l egal re- en t ry i n vi ol ati on of 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 a n dw a s s e n te n c e dto 4 6 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. H e a p p e a ls h is s e nt e nc e o n t he g r o unds t hatt he d i st ri c tc o ur ti nc o r r e c t l y c al c ul at e d the ap pr o pr i at e G ui de l i ne r ange for a “ c r i m e o f v i o l e nc e , ” a nd it s a l t e r nat e no nG ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e c anno tb e s us t ai ne d. Bec aus e the co ur tc o m m i t t e d no r e v e r s ib l e e r r o r , we AF FI RM . I . B A CK GRO UND R ui z- A r ri a ga w a s depor t ed i n Jul y 2007 af t erbe i ng c onvi c t ed o f s exual a s s a u lt o f ach ildinT e x a s . T EX . P ENAL C ODE§ 22. 011 ( a) ( 2) (A) , (c) (1 ) . Th ree m on th s after h i s d ep orta ti on , h e w a s ag a i n ar r e s tedan dpledgu i l ty to attem p t i n g i l l egally t o re- en t er th e U n i t ed S t ates by tell i n g an i m m i grati on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40242

2 of f i cer t h at he w as a U . S . ci t i zen born in D al l as, T exas. T h e presentence report ( P S R) r e c o mm e nd e da1 6
- l e v e le n h a n c e me n tp u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 L 1 . 2 (b ) ( 1 ) (A) (i i) , c l a s s i f y i n g t h e e a r l i e r s t a t u t o r y r a p e c o n v i c t i o n a s a c r i me of vi ol en ce. A s a resul tof t h i s enh an cem en tan d other adj u st m en t s, R u i zA rri aga ’ s PS R rec om m en deda t ot alof fen se l evelof

21 an d cri m i n alhi st ory C ategory I II , cor respond i n g t o an i m pri sonm en trang e of 46 to 57 m on t h s. R u i z- A rri aga subm i t t ed a w rit t en obj ect i on to th e cri m e of vi ol en ce e nhan c e m e nt . The di s t r i c tc o ur to ve r r ul e d the o bj e c t i o n a nd h e l d thatt he c or r ec tgui deli ne r ange w as 46 t o 5 7 m ont hs. D urin g th e se nt enc i ng hear i ng, h ow ev er, th e d i stri ct cou rt ad d edtha t:

. . . i n t h e even t t h at t h e court i s i n corr ect abou t t h e gu i del i n e rang e, t h at a s en t en ce atcer t ai n l y som et h i n g m ore t h an 10 to 16 m on t h s, w hi c h if t he c o ur t w e r e w r o ng i s w hat

— I ha ve n’ tr e c al c ul at e d, b ut t h at’ s w h at [ defense coun sel] says w ou l d be the ran ge. Th e court beli eve s t hata s ent enc e o f 46 m ont hs i n cus t ody w oul d be r e as o nab l e, ev e n if

t he c o ur ti s no tc o r r e c ta bo utt he g ui de l i ne ran ge. The di s t r i c tcou rta dde d f ur t he rc o m m e nt s o n t he s e nt e nc e b e f o r e c o nc l udi ng th a t R u iz -A r r ia g aw o u lds e rv e 4 6 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. H e a p p e a ls th is sentence. I I . DI S CU S S I ON Thi s co ur tre vi e w s a di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n a nd a ppli c at i o n o f t he G u i del i n es de no vo . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A l vara d o- Hernan d ez , 465 F. 3d 188, 189 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B e c a u s e w e fin dth a t a n yin te r p r e tiv e e r r o rw a s h a r m le s s , see Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 44 4 F. 3d 43 0, 44 3 ( 5th Ci r . 20 06 ) , w e ne e d no tde t e r m i ne w h et h er R u i z- A rri aga ’ s previ ou s s t atutor y rape conv i ct i on w as a cr i m e of v iole n ce u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2(b )(1)(A)(ii). D uri ng t he s ent enc i n g hear i ng, t he di st r i c tc our ts t at ed thatithad c ons i der ed the non- enhancem entr ange o f fer ed byt he def

ens e a nd w oul d have i m po s e d the s am e s e nt e nc e i nde pe nde nt l y of t he G ui de l i ne s i n li ghto f t he seri ou sness an d recent nature of t h e st atutor y rape c on vi ct i on . B ef ore a di st ri ctN o. 08- 40242

3 c o ur ti m po s e s ano n- G ui de l i ne s e nt e nc e , itm us tf i r s tpr o pe r l y c al c ul at e t he ap pli c ab l e G ui de l i ne r ang e a nd pr o vi de fac t - s pe c i f i c r e as o ns c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t he s e n te n c in gfa c to r s e n u m e r a te dins e c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a ). S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. T ze p -Mejia , 4 6 1 F .3 d5 2 2 , 5 2 5 -2 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Un itedS ta tes v . S m ith , 4 4 0 F .3d7 0 4 , 7 0 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). As we no t e d i n Un i t ed Stat es v. B o n illa , 5 2 4 F .3d6 4 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ),

“ [ n ] otal lerr ors i n deter m i n i n g a defend an t ’ s gui del i n e senten ce r equ i re rev ersa l . ” I

d. a t6 56 . W he r e t he di s t r i c tco ur t“ c o ns i de r e d t he po s s ibl e g ui de l i ne ran ges t h at m i gh tapp l y t o t h e defen da n tw i t h an d w i t h ou ta di sp u t ed e nhan c e m e ntf

o rac r i m e o f

v i o l e nc e und e rU . S. S. G . § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) (A) , ” a nd o t he r w i s e e xp l ai ns it s s e nt en ce i n te r m s o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3, t he r e s ul t i ng s e n te n c e d o e s n o t r e s u l t fr o m a n in c o r r e c t a p p lic a tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s . I d. H ere, t h e di st ri ctcourtconsi dered the 46 t o 57-m on t h ran g e w ith the cr i m e of vi ol en ce enh an cem en tan d the 10 to 16- m on t h rang e adv ocat ed byt h e defen se. T h i s c a s e w o u l d b e i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m B o n illab utf

o ra n a r gum e nt rai sed f or th e f irst t i m e on ap pea l . R u i z- A rri aga now asser t s th at th e sentence ran ge w i t h ou t t h e cri m e of vi ol en ce en h an cem en t , 10 t o 16 m on t h s, su g gest ed by hi s c ounse ldu r i ng t he sent enc i ng hear i ng, w as al soi nco r r ec t . H e cl ai m s t hat t h i s r an ge w as b ased on a leveltha terroneou sly assi gn ed h i m a cr i m i n alhi st ory p o in t fo ra n e a r lie rT e x a s m is d e m e a n o r c o n v ic tio n fo rfa ilin gto id e n tifyh im s e lf as a f u gi t ive t o an of

f i cer. Th e el em en t s of this con vi ct i on , h e a rgues, w ere not si m i l art o hi s c urr entof fens e underU . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2(c ) ( 1) . The c or r ec tr ange shou l d h ave been 8 t o 14 m on t h s, l ow eri n g t h e ran ge by t w o m on t h s. B ecau se t hi s poi nt of er r or w as notar gued be f or e the di st r i c tand given thatt hi s r ange w as sugg est ed byhi s c ou n sel , w e revi ew t h i s c l ai m f or pl ai n err or. To pr o vepl ai n er r o r , R ui z - Arr i ag a m us t“ s ho w ( 1) t he r e w as e r r o r , ( 2) t he errorw as pl ai n , ( 3) t h e err or af fect ed h i s ‘ sub st an t i alri g h ts,’an d ( 4) t h e err or se r i ous l y a ffecte d ‘t he fai r nes s, i nt egr i t y o rpubl i cr eput at i on o f j udi c i al p roce ed i n gs . ’” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 4 89 F . 3d679 , 681 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( quo t i ngN o. 08- 40242

4 Uni t e d St at e sv . O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 , 7 3 4 , 1 1 3 S .C t. 1 7 7 0 (19 9 3 )). T o sa tisfy t h e “ sub st an t i alri gh t s” prong , “i n m ostcases . . . th e err or m u stha ve been p r eju d ic ia l: It m u s t h a v e a ffe c te d th e o u tc o m e o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o c e e d in g s .” O lano , 5 07 U . S. a t7 34 . Fur t he r , “ [i] ti s t he de fe nda ntr athe rt han t he G ov ern m en t w h o b ea rs th e b u rd en of p ersu a sion w i th resp ect to pr ejud i ce.” I d. F i rst , w e cann otatt ribu t e “ pl ai n ” err or t o a di st ri ctcourtd eci si on w h en def ens e c ounse laf

f i r m at ively r e p r e s e nt e dt othed i s tric tc o urtas e nt enc i ng r ange th a t a p p e lla te co u n s e l n o w d is a v o w s . T r ia l c o u n s e l’ s m is s ta te m e n t e s s e n tia lly w a iv e s th e a r g u m e n t fo ra n yo th e rs e n te n c in gra n g e inth is a p p e a l . I t is w e ll e s ta b lis h e dth a t a p p e lla te co u r ts m a yco r r e c t e r r o r s o f la w u n d e rap la in stan d a rdw h ere tri a lcou n sel si m p l y stoo dm u te at sen ten ci n g a n dfail edto o bje c t t o th e P S R . Un i t ed S t ate s v. McCaskey , 9 F .3d3 6 8 , 3 7 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ), cer t . den i ed , 5 11 U . S . 1 042 , 1 14 S. Ct . 1 56 5 ( 19 94 ) . Thi s i s b e c aus e a“ pl ai n” er r ori s one t hatt he di st r i c tc our t , i n its ov ers i ghtof s ent enc i ng, s houl d have been al ertt o cor rect . Sen t en ci n g u n der t h e G u i del i n es i s s o com pl ex, how ever, t hatt he c our t sho ul d not be faul t ed f or “ pl ai n” er r orw hen c ounse l ’ s af f i r m at ive s t at e m e nt s a l l aya ny po s s ibl e c o nc e r n. S econd , R u i z- A rri aga ha s n ot show n t h at h e w as prej u di ced by the al l eged sentenci n g error. T h e d i st ri ctcourt , w h en consi deri n g t h e rang e t h at R u i zA rri aga now asser t s w as too hi gh , di sm i ssed t h e possibi l i t y of sentenci n g R u i zA r r ia g ato a n y th in gle s s th a n 1 6 m o n th s . I n s te a d , t h e c o u r t s ta te dth a t itw o u ld sentence him to “cer t ai n l y som et h i n g m ore than 1 0 t o 1 6 m on t h s” rega rdl ess of th e G u id e lin e ra n g e . W e h a v e fo u n d th a t a n e r r o r in a p p ly in gth e G u id e lin e s “is reversibl e error i n cases involvi n g n on - G u i del i n e sen t en ces on l y i f t h e sentence res u l t ed f

rom the erro r. ” Un i t ed Stat es v . D u h on , 541 F . 3d391 , 396 ( 5th C i r. 200 8) ( em ph asi s ad ded ) . It i s hard l y l i kely th at th e courtw ou l d h ave respon ded dif fe r e nt l y t o at w o m o nt h dif fe r e nc e i n r ang e w he n its o c l e ar l y r ej e c t e d the sl i gh t l y h i gh er r an ge. W it h ou tan y evi den ce of prej u di ce, R u i z- A rri aga cann ot me e th i s b u r d e n u n d e rp l a i n e r r o rr e v i e w.N o. 08- 40242

In s o doi ng, t he c our t r eli ed i n par t on a l et t er subm i t t ed p ri or to 1 s e nt e nc i ng byR ui z - Arr i ag a’ s w i fe , cl ai m i ng t hathi s v i c t i m w as o nly f o ur t e e n — a r e l i an ce perm i t t ed f or s en t en ci n g pu rposes but not, un der S h eph ard , f or c ri m eof

- vi ol en ce det erm i n ati on s. 5 R u i z- A rri aga al so c on t en ds f or th e f i rstt i m e on ap pea lt h at th e d istr i ct c o u r t d idn o t a d e q u a te lye x p la in its re a s o n s fo rim p o s in gh is s e n te n c e . T h is pro c edur alobj ec t i on i s w i t houtm er i t . W e haveac know l edge d t hat“ m or e than a b ri ef statem en t m a y be req u i red w h en a d i stri ct cou rt i s p re s e n te d w ith n on frivo l ou s ar gu m en ts f or a sen ten ce ou tsi d e th e G u i d eli n es.” B o n illa , 524 F. 3d at657 (c i t i ng R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 7 S . C t . 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 8 -6 9 (20 0 7 )). W e h a v e a ls o d e c li n e dto d e c id e w h e t h e rth e a d e q u a c yo f t h e tr ia l c o u r t ’s rea son i n g is su bj ect to plainerro r rev i ew w h en n ot obj ected to i n the tri a lcou rt. I d. H ere, w e al so n e e d n o treach t h e st an da rd of revi ew qu est i on . Th e court n ot ed i t s i n t eresti n prot ect i n g t h e pu bl i c f rom f u rt h er c ri m es, an d sh e cr i t i ci zed 1 R u iz -A r r ia g a ’ s fa ilu r e to m a k e as e r io u s e ffo r t t o s ta yinM e x ic o a fte rh is de po r t at i o n. As i n B o n illaa nd R ita , t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s s t atem en t s on t h e rec ord w ere adequ ate t o est abli sh that t h e sentence w as reasonab l e an d th at th e court properl y ap pl i ed the § 355 3 fact ors. I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e s e n te n c e im p o s e db yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F I RMED.