# United States Court of App eals For the Seventh Circ uit Chic ago, Il linois 60 604 A rgued A ugust 6 , 20 08 De ci ded A ugust 2 5, 20 08

B efo re FR A N K H . E A ST E R B R O O K , Chie f Judg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 07
- 3845 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la ntiff -A pp ellee,

v . EFR AI N F LORES
- S AN CH EZ, D ef endant-Appellant. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe W est er n Dis tr i ct o f W i sc o ns i n. N o. 07
- CR
- 102- S- 01 J ohn C. S habaz, J udg e . O R D E R Efr ai n Fl or es- Sanchez pl eaded g u ilty t o bei ng a deporte d al i en pre sent i n the U ni ted S ta te s wi th o utthe c o ns en t o fthe Att o r ne y Ge ne r al, i n v i o lation of 8 U. S
. C. § 1 32 6(b)
. The dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced Fl or es- Sanchez to 60 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Fl or es- Sanchez ar gues that the di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d in a pp l y i nga 1 6
- l e v e l u pwa r d a dj us t men tb a s e d o n hi s pri or W i sco nsi n convi c tio n fo r f al se i m pri sonm ent. H e co ntends thatunder W i sco nsi n l aw , f al se i m pr i so nm en t i s no t a cr i m e of vi o l en ce a s defi ne d b y U. S
. S
. G. § 2 L1. 2, a nd s o the r e was no b a s i s f o r th e a d j u s t me n t . B e c a u s e F l o r e s - S a n c h e z w a i v e d th i s a r g u me n t, w e a ffi r m. 

### NON PREC EDENTIAL DI SPOSITIO N To be c ite donly inac c or d anc e with Fe d . R . Ap p . P. 32.1N o. 07
- 3845 Page 2

Fl or es- Sanchez was re m ove d fr om the U ni ted S tat es on Decem ber3, 20 04. H e r etur ned w i thout perm i ssi on a nd was f ound in M adis on, W i sco nsi n, on M ay 2, 20 07. The next m onth a g ra nd j ury i n the W est er n D ist ric t o fW i sco nsi n re turned an i nd i ctm ent a gai nst F l or esSanchez , c h ar gin g him with hav i ng be en f ound in the Unite d Sta tes afterhavi ng be en rem oved
. H e plead ed guilty the fol low ing Sep tem ber. Th e p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e r r e c o mm e nd e d a 1 6
- l e v e l u pwa r d a dj us t men tu nd e r U. S. S. G. § 2 L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) bas ed on F l or es- Sanchez ’ s 2 004 convi c tio n u nd era W i sco nsi n sta tute p roviding that “[w ]hoeve r i nt en tionally con fi n e s o r restrains an oth er w ithou t the pers on’s conse nt and w i th kno w l edge that he orshe has no lawful authori ty to do s o i s guil ty ofa Clas s H fel ony. ” W IS . S T AT . § 9 40. 30. F l or es- Sanchez o bj ecte d, argui ng tha t “ the W i sco nsi n f al se i m pri sonm ent s tatute doe s no t co nsti tute a cr i m e o fvi ol ence” und erthe g u idel i nes. Fo r an offense to quali fy a s a cr i m e o fvi ol ence und er§ 2L1. 2( b) , Fl or es- Sanchez m ai ntai ned, the “use, at te m pte d us e, o r thr ea te ne d us e o fphy si ca l f o r ce ” m us t be a n e l emento fthe o ff en se . The Gover nm ent r esponded that Fl or es- Sanchez ’ s cri m e w as i nd eed a cri m e ofvio l ence because th e j ud gm en t of con viction sh ow ed that he w as con victed of un law fu lly “restrain[ing]” anothe r, r atherthan si m ply“co nfin in g” h er, and thus the cr i m e o fwh i ch he was co nvi cted necess ar i l y invol ved the use o ff or ce. At s en te nc i ng, a fte rthe Go ve r nm en t e xpl aine d i ts pos i ti o n to the c o ur t, the f o l l o wi ng col l oquy t oo k pl ace: M R. CARRA N ZA: J udg e, Ig ue ss b r i efl y Iwoul d j us t st at e th atbefo r e g o i ng

o n the r ec o r d M r . O’ S he a an d I d id d i sc us s th e i ss ue raised by m y obj ection and he d id p rovide to m e or share wi thme tho se do cument s th athe j us t te nde r ed to the Cou r t. I th i n k I wo u l d a g r e e a t th a t p o i n t
– a t th i s po i nt th e ex hibi t, e spe ci al l y wi ththe i nf o r m at i o n tha t m y c l i en t enter ed a pl ea to, cl ar i fi es thi ngs t o the point wh er e I woul d a g r ee wi thM r . O’Sh ea the r e i s no l o ng era ny am bi g ui tya s to whethe r a t l ea stthe f al se i m pr i so nm en t con viction th at M r. Flores-San ch ez ha s on h is r ecord quali fi es as a cr i m i nal vi ol ence. THE COURT: And w o ul d y o u the n wi th dr aw y o uro bj ec ti o n? M R
. CA R R A N Z A : Iw ou ld, You r H onor.N o. 07
- 3845 Page 3

THE COU RT: Doe s th e Defen dan t, M r . S an ch ez , do y o u wi th dr aw y o ur

obj ecti on that has pre vi ousl y been sta ted by yourat torney to the Cour t? I N TE RPR ET ER : Yes. Aft er no ting th atF l o r es - S an ch ez ’ s o bj ec ti o n t o the 1 6- l ev eli nc r ea se ha d b ee n wi th dr awn, the cour t sentence d Fl or es- Sanchez to 60 m onths’ im pri sonm ent, in the m i dd l e o fthe gui del i nes ra nge. F l o r es - S an ch ez rai ses o nl y o ne i ss ue : whethe r the di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n de te r m i ni ng that hi s s tat e co nvi cti on f orf al se i m pri sonm ent c onst i tuted a cri m e o f vi ol ence f orpurposes ofU
. S. S. G. § 2 L1. 2. Fl or es- Sanchez waive d thi s a rgum ent, and so hi s s entence m ust be a ffi r med
. “‘W aiver occu rs w he n a crim inal d efend an t inten tionally reli nq uish es a know n right.’” U nite d State s v. C le m ents , 52 2 F
. 3d 790, 79 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng U nite d State s v. B rodie, 50 7 F. 3d 527, 53 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)). “ T he to uchstone ofwaive r i s a kno w i ng and i ntenti onal deci si on. ” U nited Sta tes v. A llen , 52 9 F
. 3d 390, 39 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. Jaim esJa im es , 40 6 F
. 3d 845, 84 8 ( 7t h C i r. 20 05) )
. W ai ver“e xti ngui shes any e rr orand precl ud es appell ate r evi ew . ” B rodie, 507 F.3d at53 0; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Haddad, 462 F.3d 783 , 793 (7 t h C ir. 20 06 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ur r ay, 395 F.3d 712 , 717 (7th Cir. 2005 ). “W e ha ve foun d w aiver w he re eit h er a d efe n d an t o r h is a tt or n ey ex p re ss ly d ec lin ed to p re ss a righ t o r to m ak e a n ob j ec tio n .” U nited Sta tes v. C o o per, 243 F.3d 411 , 416 (7th C ir. 2001). Both Fl or es- Sanchez and hi s a tto rneywere ask ed by the di str i ct cour t i ftheywithdrew the obj ecti on t o the 1 6- l eve l upw ar d adj ustm ent, and eac h re sponded thattheydi d. Fl or esSanchez kno w i ngl y a nd i ntenti onal l y r el i nquished hi s r i ght to chal l enge the a pp l i cabi l i ty of th e a d j u s t me n t . B e c a u s e h e d i d s o , th e r e i s n o th i n gl e ftf o r u s t o r e v i e w. S ho r t l y b e f o r e thi s c a s e wa s o r a l l y a r g ue d, a no the r pa ne l o f thi s c o ur tde c i de d U nited St at e s v. Bil l ups , N o. 07 -20 37 (7t h C ir. Ju ly 2 9, 20 08 ). Bil l ups hel d that W IS . S T AT . § 9 40
. 30

— th e sam e W isc onsi n f al se i m pri sonm ent s tatute a t i ssue i n thi s ca se— i s a cr i m e o fvi ol ence f or pur po se s o fde te r m i ni ngwhethe r a de f en dan t i s a car ee r off en derunderU
. S
. S
. G. § 4B1
. 2. T he car eero ffender gui del i ne, however, di ff er s m ar kedl y f ro m § 2L1. 2, the gui del i ne at i ssue here
. Both gui del i nes d efin e “cri m e o fvi ol ence, ” s ubj ect to cer tai n qual i fi cati ons, as an “ off ense und erfeder al, state , or l oca l law that has as an el em ent the use, attem pted use, o r thre ate ned u se o f p hysi calf or ce a gai nst the per son ofano ther, ” s ee U. S
. S
. G. § § 2L1
. 2 cmt. ( 1) ( B) ( i i i) ; 4 B1
. 2 ( a ) ( 1 )
. Bu to nl y the c a r e e r c r i mi na l g ui de l i ne — no tthe i l l e g a l r e - e nt r y g ui del i ne — a ddsN o. 07
- 3845 Page 4

that a cri m e o fvi ol ence i s a lso any f el ony that “i nvol ves conduct thatpre sents a ser i ous r i sk of physi cali nj ury to anothe r. ” Se e U .S.S.G . § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2); Bil l ups , sl i p op. at4. Bil l ups he l d th at a co nv i ct i o n unde r § 94 0. 30 “inv o l ve s co nduc t th at pr es en ts a s er i o us ri sk ofphysi cal i nj ury to anothe r, ” but i t hel d that § 94 0. 30 did not have as an el em ent the “use , att em pted use, o r thre ate ned use o fphysi calf or ce. ” B illup s, slip op . at 4. B illup s thus r ej ecte d th e i nt er pr et at i o n o f§ 2 L1. 2 ado pte d b y the Go ve r nm en t atF l o r es - S an ch ez ’ s se nt encing hear i ng. I fhe ha d not wai ved the poi nt, Fl or es- Sanchez m ay have had a va l i d a rgum ent that the di str i ct c ourtm i scal cul ate d the advi sor y gui del i ne ra nge f or hi s sente nce. Recogni zi ng tha t the Gove rnm ent had the o pti on o f s ta n d in g o n the w ai vero r f or ego i ng i t, we aske d at o ra l ar g um en t whi chc o ur se th e Gov ernm en t wi sh ed to ta k e. I t r es po nde d th at i t wi sh ed to s ta nd on the waiv erand, i fnece ssa ry, l i ti gat e the sente nci ng i ssue afterFl or es- Sanchez fi l es a m oti on to vacat e hi s sente nce und er 28 U
. S. C. § 2255 f or i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce of counsel ( as he al m ost as su re d ly w ill). Fl or es- Sanchez ’ s s entence i s there f or e A FFI RMED .