## 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- 20 90

__ __ __ __ __ _

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

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Fern an do Reze nd is Barr ie nt os , *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 14 , 20 11
Fi le d: Mar ch 8, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re LOKEN, BRIGHT, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Fern an do Barr ie nt os pl ed gu il ty to po ss es si on wit h int en t to dis tr ib ut e 50 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 ), (b )(1 )(A)

. At

se nt en ci ng , Barr ie nt os so ug ht a two -le ve l red uc ti on in hi s of fen se le ve l, cl ai m in g he

was el ig ib le fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f pu rs ua nt to Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m iss io n,
Gui de li ne s Man ua l, §5 C1 .2 an d 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f)(1 )-(5 ). The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

Barr ie nt os sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f, rel y in g in erro r on ou r pr io r de ci si on in Uni te d St at es

v. W eb b, 21 8 F.3 d 87 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ), whi ch ha s be en tru m pe d by Am en dm en t 70 9

to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. W e rev ers e Barr i e n to s’s se nt en ce an d rem an d th is

m at te r to th e d is tri ct co ur t fo r res en te nc in g.I.

Und er se ct io n 5C 1.2 an d se ct io n 35 53 (f), a de fen da nt co nv ic te d un de r se ct io n

84 1 m ay be se nt en ced be l o w t h e s ta tu to ry m in im um an d in acco rd an ce wit h th e

ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran g e i f th e de fen da nt m eet s cert ai n cri te ria

, in cl ud in g no t

ha vi ng m or e th an on e cri m in al hi st or y po in t. See USSG §5 C1 .2; 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f).

Thi s is kn own as “ sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f.” See Pep pe r v. Uni te d St at es , 13 1 S. Ct

. 12 29

, 12 36 n.1 (20 11 ).

W he n cal cu la ti ng a de fen da nt ’s cri m in a l h i s to ry , th e di st ric t co ur t lo ok s to

Gui de li ne s se ct io n 4A1 .2. Sect io n 4A1 .2 in st ru ct s di st ric t co ur ts to co un t se nt en ces

fo r sp eci fic , l is te d m is de m ean or s an d pe tt y of fen se s “ an d of

fen se s s im il ar t o t he m ”

whe n th e de fen da nt ’s pr io r “ se nt en ce was a te rm of pr ob at io n of m or e th an on e y ear

or a te rm of im

pr is on m en t of at le as t th irt y da y s.” USSG §4 A1.2 (c)( 1)

. The se ct io n

al so li st s of

fen se s th at are “ ne ve r co un te d,” in c l u d i n g “ juv en il e st at us of

fen se s an d

tru an cy .” USSG §4 A1.2 (c)( 2)

. Als o, of fen se s “ si m il ar to ” th os e li st ed are no t to be

co un te d. Id

.

Pri or to th e en act m en t of Am en dm en t 7 0 9

, we ad op te d an “ el em en ts ” or

“es se nt ia l ch arac te ris ti cs ” te st to de te rm in e whe th er two cri m es were “ si m il a r ” f o r

pu rp os es of se ct io n 4A1 .2(c ). See Uni te d St at es v. Bo rer, 41 2 F.3 d 98 7, 99 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 ); W eb b, 21 8 F.3d at 88 0- 81 ; see als o Uni te d Stat es v. Mit ch el l, 94 1 F.2d 69 0,

69 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ). W e fo un d ou rs el ve s in go od co m pa ny, as se ve ral ot he r ci rcu it s

al so em pl oyed th e “ el em en ts ” or “ es se nt ia l ch arac te ris ti cs ” ap pr oa ch

. See Uni te d

St at es v. Pere z de Dio s, 23 7 F.3 d 11 92

, 11 98 (1 0t h Ci r

. 2 0 0 1 ) ; Uni te d St at es v.
Harri s, 12 8 F.3 d 85 0, 85 4- 55 (4 th Ci r. 19 97 ); Uni te d St at es v. Elm or e, 10 8 F.3 d 23

, 27 (3 d Ci r. 19 97 ); Uni te d St at es v. Ung er, 91 5 F.2 d 75 9, 76 3 (1 st Ci r. 19 90 ). Oth er
ci rcu it s, ho wev er, foll owe d th e Fi fth Ci rcu it ’s m ul ti -fac to r, “ co m

m on se ns e” tes t to

de te rm in e whe th e r two cri m es were si m il ar un de r se ct io n 4A1 .2(c ). See Uni te d

St at es v. Hard em an , 93 3 F.2 d 2 7 8

, 28 1 (5 th Ci r. 19 91 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v.

- 2

-Mar ti ne z-Sa nt os , 18 4 F.3d 19 6, 20 5- 06 (2 d Cir. 19 99 ); Uni te d Stat es v. Bo ok er, 7 1

F.3 d 6 85 , 68 9 (7 th Cir . 19 95 ).

Our “ es se nt ia l el em en ts ” ap pr oa ch le d us in W eb b t o de te rm in e th at a pr io r
Ohi o co nv ic ti on fo r th e of fen se of “ pr oh ib it io ns ,” a cri m e ak in to a mi no r in

po ss es si on of al co ho l of

fen se , was no t a juv en il e st at us of fen se or si m il ar to a pu bl ic

in to xi cat io n of

f e n s e , b ot h cri m es th at are no t co un te d in a de fen da nt ’s cri m in al

hi st or y un de r se ct io n 4 A1.2 (c)( 2)

.

Effect iv e N o v e mber 1, 20 07

, th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on “ res ol ve [d ] [th e]

ci rcu it co nf

li ct ov er t h e mann er in whi ch a co ur t sh ou ld de te rm in e whe th er a no nli st ed of fen se is ‘sim il ar to ’ an of

fen se li st ed at §4 A1.2 (c)( 1) or (2 ).” USSG App

. C,

Am en d. 70 9. In pa ss in g Am en dm en t 70 9, the Co m m issio n ad op te d th e Fi fth Ci rcu it ’s

m ul ti -fac to r, “ co m

m on se ns e” ap pr oa ch fro m Hard em an

. Now, th e co m m en ta ry to

se ct io n 4 A1.2 pro vi de s:

In de te rm in in g whe th er an un li st ed of fen se is si m il ar to an of

fen se li st ed
in su bs ect io n (c)( 1) or (c)( 2)

, th e co ur t sh ou ld us e a co m m on s e ns e
ap pr oa ch th at in cl ud es co ns id erat io n of rel ev an t fact or s su ch as (i) a

co m pa ris on of pu ni sh m en ts im po se d fo r th e li st ed an d un li st ed of fen se s; (ii ) th e pe rcei ve d se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se as in di cat ed by th e le ve l of

pu ni sh m en t; (ii i) th e el em en ts of th e of fen se ; (iv ) th e le ve l of cu lp ab il it y in vo lv ed ; a n d ( v) th e de gr ee to whi ch th e co m m is si on of th e of

fen se in di cat es a li ke li ho od of r ecu rri ng cri m in al co nd uc t.

USSG § 4A1 .2, co m

m en t. (n .12 (A)).

Fo ll owi ng th e ad op ti on of Am en dm en t 70 9, Ju dg e Bri gh t warn ed th at ou r pr io r

cas es co nc ern in g th e “ si m il ar to ” qu es ti on were no lo ng er g o o d la w. See Uni te d

St at es v. Leo n- Alv arez , 53 2 F.3 d 81 5, 82 0- 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (Bri gh t, J., co nc ur rin g)
(“ Rec en t l y

. . . th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on

. . . ad op te d Am en dm en t

- 3

-70 9

. . . ex pr es sl y r e je ct [in g] ou r ‘elem en ts ’ ap pr oa ch in fav or of th e ‘m ul ti -fac to r’

ap pr oa ch fo r de te rm in in g whe th er a pr io r of fen se is ‘sim il ar to ’ on e of th e en um erat ed

of fen se s in §4 A1.2 (c). In effe ct

, Am en dm en t 70 9 cl ari fie d th e ap pr oa ch co ur ts

sh ou ld us e in de te rm in in g th e ‘sim il ari ty’ of of fen se s for th e pu rp os es of §4 A1.2 (c)

th us tru m pi ng ou r de ci si on i n B o rer.” ). See al so Uni te d St at es v. Pan do

, 54 5 F.3 d

68 2, 68 3- 84 (8 th Ci r. 2008 ) (r ei te ra tin g Judg e Br igh t’ s co ncur ren ce in Leo n- Alv arez ).

II.

W it h th is ba ck gr ou nd in pl ace, we tu r n t o t h e cas e at ha nd

. Barr ie nt os pl ed

gu il ty to po ss es si ng wit h in te nt 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

in vi ol at io n of se ct io n 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A). Thi s co nv ic ti on carr ie s a m a n d a t o r y

m i ni m um se nt en ce of 10 y ears un le ss Barr ie nt os can be ne fit fro m th e sa fet y -v al ve

pr ov is i o n o f s e c t i o n 35 53 (f). See 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A); 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f).

Barr ie nt os arg ue d th at he was en ti tl ed to sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f. The pr e s e nt en ce

in ve st ig at io n re po rt d et erm in ed th at , bu t fo r hi s t wo cr im in al hi st or y po in ts

, he was
el ig ib le fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f. He ob jecte d to th e im

po si ti on of th e cri m in al hi st or y

po in t fo r hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on u n de r Mi nn es ot a la w at th e ag e of 19 fo r “ Liq uo r

Co ns um pt io n b y Pers on s Un de r 21 .” See M in n. St at . § 3 40 A.50 3.

In hi s ob jecti on , Barr ie nt os arg ue d th at ou r de ci si on in U n i t e d St at es v.

Jo hn st on , 53 3 F.3 d 97 2 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 08 ), qu es ti on ed whe th er ou r pr io r de ci si on in

W eb b sp eci fic al ly ad dr es se d if an ad ul t co nv ic ti on fo r be in g a m in or in po ss es si on

was “ si m il ar to ” a juv en il e st at us co nv ic ti on

. Barr ie nt os arg ue d th at th e ap pr op ria te

ru l e w a s t h a t ad op te d by th e Si xt h Ci rcu it in Uni te d St at es v. Co le

, 41 8 F.3 d 59 2,

59 9- 60 0 (6 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th at ad ul t co n v ic ti on fo r m in or -in -p os se ss io n

of fen s e was “ si m il ar to ” a juv en il e st at us of fen se ). In res po ns e, th e go ve rn m en t

ex pe nd ed co ns i d e r a b le in k in de fen se of th e “ es se nt ia l el em en ts ” ap pr oa ch us ed in

ou r W eb b de ci si on , arg ui ng W eb b he ld an ad ul t co nv ic ti on fo r be in g a m in or in

po ss es si on of al co ho l was no t “ si m il ar” to a juv en il e st at us of fen se

. Neit he r pa rty

- 4

-al ert ed th e di st ric t co ur t to th e ch an ge in ho w to a d d res s th e “ si m il ar to ” qu es ti on

aft er th e ad op ti on of Am en dm en t 70 9. Th e d i s t r i c t co ur t co nd uc te d a he ari ng on 1

Barr ie nt os ’s ob

jecti on

. At th e he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t st ren uo us ly arg ue d th at W eb b

was co nt ro ll in g, s ta ti ng , “ th e p rece de nt is W eb b. Th at ’s what we’re tal ki ng ab ou t.

Tha t’s wha t th is cas e is ab ou t.” (Hr’g Tr., Doc

. 45 at 9.) In ru li ng on th e ob jecti on , th e di st ric t co ur t ex pr es se d co ns i d erab le fru st rat io n th at Barr ie nt os wou ld no t be

el ig ib le fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f, bu t de te rm in ed “ wit h du e reg ard fo r t h e l a w th at ’s

be en cit ed , [th e cri m in al hi st or y po in t] was p ro pe rly im

po se d.” (Id . at 1 5.)

At se nt en ci ng , Barr ie nt os ag ai n rai se d th e sa fet y -v al ve is su e “ sp eci fic al ly to

pr es erv e an d m ai nt ai n” th at is su e fo r ap pe al

. Rec og ni zi ng Barr ie nt os ’s o bjec ti on s,

th e co ur t ex pl ai ne d it “ was bo un d to fo ll ow wha t [it ] un de rs to od to be th e ex is ti ng

la w ” o n t he sa fet y -v al ve is su e. The go ve rn m en t ad di ti on al ly no te d th at it wou ld

op po se th e ap pl ic at io n of th e sa fet y va lv e be cau se Barr ie nt os ha d fai le d to tru th fu ll y

pr ov id e to th e go ve rn m en t al l in fo rm at io n an d ev id en ce he ha d reg ard in g hi s of fen se

. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f)(5 ) (to qu al ify fo r sa fet y -v al v e rel ie f, de fen da nt m us t

tru th fu ll y pr ov id e “ no t la te r th an th e ti m e of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. . . al l

in fo rm at io n a nd ev id en ce t he de fen da nt ha s con cern in g th e of fen se or off

en se s t ha t

were pa rt of th e sa m e co ur se of co nd uc t or of a co m m on sc he m e or pl an ”). Barr ie nt os

arg ue d th at th e p r e se nt en ce rep or t fo un d th at he ha d m et th is req ui rem en t bu t

su gg es te d th at

, in li gh t of th e c o u r t ’s p r i o r ru li ng on th e cri m in al hi st or y po in t, th e
is su e was m oo t. The go ve rn m en t ex pr es sl y ag reed t h at th e qu es ti on of whe th er

Barr ie nt os pr ov id ed tru th fu l in fo rm at io n pr io r to se nt en ci ng was m oo t in li gh t of th e
di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on th e cri m in al hi st or y po in t.

The di st ric t co ur t im

po se d a se nt en ce of 1 2 1 m on th s im pr is on m en t.

Barr ie nt os ’s pl ea ag reem en t co nt ai ne d an ap pe al waiv er fro m an y se nt en ce of 12 0

In de ed , at t he he ari ng , th e g ov ern m en t i nf or m ed th e di st ric t cou rt t ha t i t h ad 1

“ ci te d a ll th e cas es po ss ib le on th is is su e.” (Hr’g Tr., Doc . 45 at 9 .)

- 5

-m on th s or lo wer. The di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e ad di ti on al m on th ab ov e th e st at ut or y

m in im um so th at Barr ie nt os co ul d b rin g t hi s ap pe al

.

III.

W he n rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s im po si ti on of a se nt en ce, we r e v i e w “de

no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n a n d a pp li cat io n of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

an d st at ut es , an d it s fact -fi nd in gs fo r cl ear erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Res in os , 63 1 F.3 d

88 6, 88 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 1 ) ( e n b a n c ) (p er cu ria m ). An in it ia l qu es ti on we ad dr es s is

whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a “ si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r” whe n it im po se d

th e se nt en ce. Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s
he ld th at “ fai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y c al cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s” is su ch a
si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r. Id

. Thi s in cl ud e s t h e di st ric t co ur t’s cal cu la ti on of

cri m in al hi st or y po in ts

. See Uni te d St at es v. Tom ac, 56 7 F.3 d 38 3, 38 5- 87 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ).

A fai r read in g of th e he ari ng tra ns cri pt sh ows th e di st ric t co ur t, at th e in vi ta ti on

of bo t h p a rti es , m is ta ke nl y rel ie d up on W eb b to de te rm in e th at Barr ie nt os ’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on fo r vi ol at in g Mi nn es ot a’s “ Liq uo r Co ns um pt io n by Pers on s Und er 21 ”

was en ti tl ed to a cri m in al hi st or y po in t. Abs en t fro m th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt’s

de te rm in at io n of whe th er Barr ie nt os ’s pr io r se nt en ce warra nt ed th e cri m in al hi st or y

po in t was an y di sc us si on of

, or refe ren ce to

, th e fact or s no w li s t e d u n d e r th e

co m m en ta ry to se ct io n 4A1 .2. Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d

pr oc ed ur al erro r in fai li ng to co ns id er th e am en de d se ct io n 4A1 .2 whe n it de te rm in ed

Barr ie nt os ’s cri m in al hi st or y po in ts

.

IV.

W e rev ers e th e se nt en ce an d rem an d th is m at te r to t h e d i st ric t co ur t fo r

res en te nc in g.

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

- 6

-