T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a s e , re s ju dica ta and col l at er ales t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t ati on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe cit ed under the t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED Unite d St ate s C ourt o f Appe als Te nth Cir c uit 

### Ju n e 21, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. J AVI E R MEN DOZ A- GUAR DI OL A, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2296 ( D . N ew M exi co) ( D. Ct . No . CR - 0 5 - 6 9 0 - J H)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui t Judg es.

A ft er exami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l y t hat or al ar gum ent w oul d not m at er i al l y as s i s t t he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. O n M ay 5, 2005, J avi er M endoza - G uar di ol a pl ed gui l t y t o one count of i l l egal r eent r y fol l ow i ng depor t at i on i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) . T heT he PSR det erm i ned M endoza - G uar di ol a’ s bas e off ens e l evelw as ei ghtpur s uant 1 t o U SSG §2L 1. 2( a) . T w elve l evel s w er e adde d forhi s pr i orfel ony“drug tr aff i cking” convi cti on. M endoza - G uar di ol a al s o r ece i ved a thr ee l eveldow nw ar d adj us tm entfor acc ept ance of r es pons ibi l i typur s uantt o U SSG §3E 1. 1. T hus , hi s t ot aloffe ns e l evelw as s e v e n t e e n , w i thac r i m i n a lh i s t o ry c a t e g o ry o f I , r e s u l t i n g i nag u i d e l i n e r an g e o f tw e n tyfou r to thi rtym on ths.

- 2- di s t r i ct cour t s ent ence d hi m t o t w ent y - four m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T hat s ent ence w as in ac co rd w it h the re co m m en d ati o n in the P rese n tenc e In v esti g ati o n R ep o rt ( PSR ) , w hi ch r ecomm ended a t w el ve- l evel enhanc ement beca us e t he defendant had a pr i or fel ony dr ug t r aff i cki ng convi ct i on. See U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng 1 C o m m is s io n , G u id e lin e s Ma n u a l, § 2 L1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( 2004) . D e fe n d a n t o bjec ted to t he P S R , argui ng t hat he w as not s ubj ect t o the t w el ve-l evel enhan cem ent because hi s pr i or fel ony convi ct i on, al t hough an “a ggr avat ed fe l ony , ” w as not a fe l ony “dr ug t r aff

i cki ng offe ns e” for pur pos es of U SSG §2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( B ) . T he di s t r i ct cour t di s agr eed. I t al s o r ej ect ed M endoza - G uar di ol a’ s ar gum ent t hat a s ent ence w i t hi n t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange w as unr eas onabl e and de ni ed hi s r eques t for a dow nw ar d depar t ur e. J udgm ent w as ent er ed on Sept ember 2, 2005. M endoza G u a rd io la tim e ly a p p e a led . H e ra ise s th e sa m e a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l th a t h e d id b e lo w , i . e. , hi s pr i or convi ct i on w as not a “f el ony dr ug t r aff

i cki ng offe ns e, ” and adds t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d AFF I RM .- 3-

D i s cus s i on : W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s appl i cat i on and i nt er pr et at i on of t he S entenci ng G uidel i nes de novo . Un itedS ta tes v . C h a v e z-Va len zu e la , 170 F. 3d 1 0 3 8 , 1 0 3 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). H o w e v e r, w e re v ie w fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Un itedS ta tes v . S e rr a ta , 425 F. 3d 886, 906 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . T he cl as s i fi cat i on o f a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w we r e v i e w de novo . Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i nez - Vi l l al va , 232 F. 3d 1329, 1332 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) . W e r evi ew s ent ence s im p o sed af

ter Uni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Uni t ed St at es v. G l over , 413 F. 3d 1206, 1210 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . W e not e t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t “i s not r equi r ed t o cons i der i ndi vi dual l y eac h fac t or l i s t ed i n § 3553( a) befor e i s s ui ng a s ent ence . ” Uni t ed St at es v. K el l ey , 359 F. 3d 1302, 1305 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . “I f . . . t he di s t r i ct cour t pr oper l y cons i der s t he r el evant G u id e lin e s ra n g e a n d se n ten c e s th e d e fe n d a n t w ith in th a t ra n g e , the se n ten c e is pr es um pt i vel y r eas onabl e. ” Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) . “The defe ndant m ay r ebut t hi s pr es um pt i on by demonst r at i ng t hat t he s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ght of t he ot her s ent enci ng fac t or s l ai d out i n [18 U . S. C . ] § 3553( a) . ” Id . S ect i on 2L 1. 2(b)( 1)( B ) cal l s for a t w el ve-l evel enhan cem ent t o the base offe ns e l evel i f t he defendant w as depor t ed af t er havi ng been c onvi ct ed of a “fe l ony dr ug t r aff

i cki ng offe ns e for w hi ch t he s ent ence i m pos ed w as 13 m ont hs or l es s . . . . ” The se nt enci ng gui del i nes defi ne a “ [d] r ug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e” a s “anS ect i on 19 52 provides: 2 ( a) W hoevertr avel s i n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce orus es the mai lorany fa cil ityin interstat e o r fo reign co m m erc e, w ithinten t to -- ( 1) di s tr ibut e the pr ocee ds of anyunl aw fulacti vi ty ; or ( 2) comm i tanycri m e of vi ol ence t o furtheranyunl aw fulacti vi ty ; or ( 3) otherw i s e pr om ot e, m anage , es t abl i s h, carryon, orfac i l i t at e the pr om ot i on, m anage m ent , es t abl i s hm ent , orcarryi ng on, of anyunl aw ful a c t i v i ty, an dthere af

ter pe rfo rm s o r att em p ts to p erf o rm -- (A) ana c t d e sc rib e dinp ara g rap h(1 ) o r (3 ) sh a ll b e f in e dun d e r th is t i t l e, i m pr i s oned notm or e than 5 y ear s , orboth; or

- 4- offe ns e under fede r al , s t at e, or l ocal l aw t hat pr ohi bi t s . . . t he pos s es s i on of a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e . . . w ith in ten t to d istrib u te . . . . ” U S S G § 2 L 1 .2 , co m m e n t. ( n. 1( B ) ( i v) ) . T o det er m i ne w het her M endoza - G uar di ol a’ s pr i or convi ct i on co n sti tutes a “ d rug tr affick ing o ffen se,” the co u rt m u st fir st l o o k to the stat u tory d e fin itio n o f

th e c ri m e . See Unit ed S t ates v. R eyes- C ast ro , 13 F. 3d 377, 379 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) . W e empl oy a “c at egor i cal appr oach” t o det er m i ne w het her M endoza - G uar di ol a’ s pr i or convi ct i on under 18 U . S. C . § 1952 i s a “dr ug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e. ” Uni t ed St at es v. Her r er a- R ol dan , 414 F. 3d 1238, 1240- 41 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); s ee als o Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i nez - Her nandez , 422 F. 3d 1084, 1088 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( char act er i zi ng Her r er a- R ol dan as appl y i ng t he ca t egor i cal a p p ro a c h ). B y its ter m s, 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 2 re a c h e s d iffe re n t typ e s o f c o n d u c t. 2( B) an ac tdes cribed in par agr aph ( 2) s hal lbe fined underthi s t i t l e, im p riso n e df

o r n o t m o re th an2 0 y e ars, o r b o th , an dif d e a thre su lts s hal lbe i m pr i s oned foranyt erm of y ear s orforl i fe. ( b) A s used i n thi s secti on (i ) “unl aw ful acti vity ” m eans (1) anybu si ness ent erpr i s e i nvol vi ng gambl i ng, l i quoron w hi ch the Feder alexci s e t ax has notbeen pai d, nar coti cs orcontr ol l ed s ubs t ance s ( as defined in s ecti on 102( 6) of the C ontr ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct) , orpr os t i tut i on offe ns es i n vi ol ati on of the l aw s of the St at e i n w hi ch theyar e comm i tt ed orof the U ni t ed St at es , ( 2) ext ort i on, br ibery , or ar s on i n vi ol ati on of the l aw s of the St at e in w hi ch comm i tt ed orof the U ni t ed S tate s, o r (3 ) an ya c t w h ich is in d ictab le u n d e r sub c h ap terII o f c h ap ter5 3 o f

title 3 1 , U n ite dS ta te s C o d e , o r u n d e r s e c tio n1 9 5 6 o r 1 9 5 7 o f th is title . . . . T he i nform ati on s t at ed: 3 Ja v ierM e n d o z a , d e f

e n d an t h e re in , d idtrav e l inin ter sta te c o m m e rc e , fr o m th e sta te of O kl ahoma, t o the s t at e of I l l i noi s , w i th i nt entt o pr om ot e, m anage , es t abl i s h, carryon [and] fac i l i t at e the pr om ot i on, m anage m ent , es t abl i s hm entand carryi ng on of unl aw fulacti vi ty , t o w i t , the know i ng and i nt enti onalpos s es s i on w i th i nt ent to d istrib u te ap p ro x im ately4 7 p o un d s o f m ariju an a , a S c h e du le I I N o n -N arc o tic C o n tro lledS ub stan c e , an dth e re a f ter , o nA p ril 1 9 , 1 9 8 9 , d idp e rf o rm an dc au se to b e p e r f o rme da c t s f

a c i l i t at i n g s a i dun l awf

u la c t i v i ty ; a l li nv i o l a t i o no f [ 1 8 U. S . C. §] 1952. (A p p e lle e ’s E x h . 1 at 1 .)

- 5- Uni t ed St at es v. R odr i quez - D uber ney , 32 6 F . 3d 61 3, 61 7 (5t h C i r. 20 03 ). T hu s, th e c o u rt “ m a y lo o k to th e c h a rg in g p a p e r a n d ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n ” to d e te rm in e h o w th e o ffe n s e s h o u ld b e c la s s ifie d . Unit ed S t ates v. Veneg asO r nel as , 3 4 8 F . 3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 7 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he i nfor m at i on t o w hi ch M endoza - G uar di ol a pl ed gui l t y i n t he or i gi nal c a se sp e c ifica lly a lleg e d h e p o ss e ss e d m a riju a n a w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te it. 3 A l t hough hi s pl ea a gr eement and t he j udgm ent m ay not have ment i oned t hat M endoza - G uar di ol a pos s es s ed mar ij uana w i t h t he i nt ent t o di s t r i but e, M endoza -M endoza - G uar di ol a’ s pr i orconvi cti on need notbe pl ed in the indi ctm entor 4 p ro v e nb e y o n dare a s o n ab le d o ub t to aju ry. A lm endarez- Torrezv. U ni ted States , 523 U . S. 224, 226- 27 ( 1998) . N orcan w e s etas i de the hol di ng of A lm endarez- Torres bas ed upon the Supr eme C ourt ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n Shepard v. U ni ted States , 544 U . S. 13 ( 2005) . A l though Sh epa rd cas t s s om e doubton the conti nui ng val i di tyof A lm endarezTorres , th e S up re m e C o urth a s n o t o v e rru le dit an dw e c o n tin u e to b e b o un db yit. See Sh epa rd , 5 4 4 U .S . at 2 7 (T h o m a s, J., co n c urrin g ) (s tatin g th a t A lm endarez- Torres “has b e e ne ro d e db yth is C o urt’s s ub se qu e n t S ix thA m e n dm e n t jurisp ru d e n c e , an dam a jo rity o f th e C o urt n o w re c o g n ize s th at A lm endarez- Torres w a s w ro n g lyd e c id e d ” ); U ni ted States v. Moo re , 401 F. 3d 1220, 1224 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( “[W ] e ar e bound byexi s t i ng pr ece dentt o hol d thatthe A lm endarez- Torres e x c e p tio nto th e ru le a n n o un c e din Apprendi[ v. N

ew Jer s ey , 530 U . S. 46 ( 2000) ] and ext ended to the G ui del i nes i n B ooker r emai ns good l aw . ”) . M endoza - G uar di ol a conc edes thi s C ourti s s t i l lobl i gat ed t o fol l ow A lm endarez - Torres , butr ai s es the i s s ue “in or dert o pr es erve the cl ai m forfurther re v ie w .” (A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 2 7 .)

- 6- G u a rd io la s p e c ifica lly p led g u ilt y to th e in fo rm a tio n a n d th e re fo re a d m itt e d a ll th e a lle g a tio n s c o n ta in e d th e re in . Uni t ed St at es v. B r oce , 488 U . S. 563, 570 (1 9 8 9 ); Un itedS ta tes v . Hill , 53 F. 3d 1151, 1155 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) . T he al l egat i ons i n t he i ndi ct m ent , t o w hi ch M endoza - G uar di ol a admi t t ed by pl eadi ng gui l t y , ar e s uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h t hat hi s pr i or convi ct i on w as for a “dr ug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e. ” Thus, t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s i m pos i t i on of a t w el ve- l evel en h an ce m en t w as n o t error. 4 N o r is M e n d o z a -G u a rd io la’ s s e n ten c e u n re a so n a b le. M e n d o z a -G u a rd io la w as s ent ence d w i t hi n a cor r ect l y cal cul at ed gui del i ne r ange. T hus , t he s ent ence im p o s e d in th is c a s e is p re s u m p tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . K ris tl , 437 F. 3d at 1055. T he di s t r i ct cour t cons i der ed and a ppl i ed t he s ent enci ng fac t or s i n § 3553( a) and r el i ed heavi l y upon t he fa ct t hat M endoza - G uar di ol a had not r ece i ved anycr i m i nal- 7-

hi s t or y poi nt s for hi s pr i or convi ct i on. A ddi t i onal l y , t he di s t r i ct cour t deemed M endoza - G uar di ol a’ s “fa m i l y s i t uat i on, [] fi nanci al s i t uat i on, [] i l l egal s t at us , and [] r easons fo r r et urni ng t o the U nit ed S t at es ar e no t fact ors t hat t ake h i s case out s i de of t he hea r t l and of c as es , of t hos e w ho ar e s i m i l ar l y s i t uat ed” a nd sen tenc ed h im at t h e b o tt o m o f th e se n tenc ing ran g e. (R . V o l. III at 35 , 3 6 . ) M endoza - G uar di ol a has fai l ed t o adequa t el y r ebut t he pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s by es t abl i s hi ng t he s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e i n l i ght of t he sen tenc ing fa ctors in § 3 5 5 3 (a). AF F I RMED . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui t J udge