Pursuant to 5th Cir. R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this op inio n s hould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin5th Cir. R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41287 Su m m ar y Cal endar 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. JOR G E PU I LD O
- I SLA S , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8 - CR- 7 6 6 - ALL B e fo r e J O L LY , W IE N E R , a n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * J org e P u il d o -I s la s a p p e a ls th e 3 7 -m o n th s e n te n c e h e re c e iv e df or h i s gu ilty pl ea conv i ct i on t o bei n g f ou n d un l aw f

u l l y i n t h e U n i t ed Stat es af t er hav i n g been dep ort ed f

ol l ow i n g a fel on y convic t i on . Puil do
- I sl as argu es t h at th e di st ri ctcourt r e v e r s ib l ye r r e db ya p p l y i n gt h e e i g h t - l e v e le nh a nc e me n tu n d e rU. S . S . G. § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( C) . Puil do
- I s l as a r gue s t hat , b e c aus e t he r e i s no i nf o r m at i o n i n t he r e c o r d r e ga r di ng w he t he rPui l do
- I s l as a ppe al e d hi s J anua r y 26 , 2 006, dr ug c o nvi c t i o ns , t he g o ve r nm e ntfail e d t o pr o ve t hathi s s ubs e que ntdr ug c o nvi c t i o n, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April28, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-41287 Document: 00511093783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 08- 41287

2 on M ay 10 , 200 7, w as com m i t t ed aft er hi s Jan u ary 26, 200 6, convi ct i on s w ere fin a l, a s r e q u i r e d u n d e r2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 (a ). P u ild o -I s la s a ls o a r g u e s th a t h is M ay 10 , 2 0 07, convi ct i on w as not pu n i sha bl e as a f el on y reci divi stpossess i on und er§ 844( a) beca use the gov er nm entfai l ed t o pr ove t hatt he c onvi c t i on w as secured i n com pl i an ce w i t h st ri ctprocedu ralrequi rem en t s c om pa rabl e to t h ose in 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 . P u i l d o-Isl a s con ced es th a t review i s f or p l a i n erro r be ca u s e h e fail edto o bje c t t o th e e n h a n c e m e n t in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee Uni t e d St a t e s v. Hernan d ez- Mart i n ez , 485 F. 3d 270, 272- 73 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) . T o sh ow pl ai n err or, P u i l d o-Isl a s m u st sh ow a forfei tederro r th a t i s cl ea r or ob viou s an dtha t aff ects h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . S ee P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 4 2 3 , 1 4 2 9 (20 0 9 ). I f he m ak e s s uc h as ho w i ng, t hi s c o ur tha s t he di s c r e t i o n t o c o r r e c tt he e r r o rb ut onl y i f i tser i ous l y af

fec t s t he fai r nes s, i nt egr i t y, orpubl i cr eput at i on o f j udi c i al p r o c e e d in g s . Se ei d. Pu i l do- I sl as ’ s ar gum ent s r egar di ng t he f i nal i t y o f

hi s Janua ry26, 2006, convic t i on s are u n a v a il in g . T h e re co rd in d ica te s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n tin t rodu ced t he j udg m e nt s f

o rPui l do
- I s l as ’ s J anua r y 26 , 2 00 6, a nd M ay1 0, 2 00 7, dr ug c onvi c t i ons , t hatappr oxi m at ely o ne ye arpas se d bet w ee n hi s January 26, 2006, convic t i on s and t h e com m i ssi on of hi s 200 7 of

fen se, an d t h at P u i l do-I sl as h as not as s e r t e d t hathe ap pe al e d hi s Ja nuary 26 , 2 00 6, c o nvi c t i o ns , o ro t he r w i s e s o ugh t d i scre ti on a ryre view . O rd i n a ri l y, itis th e go ve rn m en t’ s b u rd en to sh ow tha t a previ ou s c on vi ct i on w as “f i n al” f or t h e pu rposes of § 844 ( a) an d w h ere t h e rec ord i s s i l e nt , w e w i l l no t as s um e f i nali t y ab s e ntt he pa s s ag e o f as ubs t ant i ala m o unt o f tim e . S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Andr ade
-Agui lar , 57 0 F . 3 d21 3 , 21 7 -18 & n . 6 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). U n d e rF lo r id ala w , P u ild o -I s l a s h a dth ir tyd a y s to a p p e a l h is c o n v ic t ion to th e F lor id aa p p e ll a te co u rts . S e e F la . R . A p p . P . 9 .14 0 (b )(3). Pur s uantt o Supr e m e Cour tRul e 13( 1) , a pet i t i o n fo ra w r i to f c e r t i o r ar it o t he U n i tedS tates S u p rem e C ou rt “s e e k in g re view of aj u d gm en t of a low er sta te c o u r t t h a t is s u bje c t t o d i s c r e tio n a r yre v ie w b yth e s ta te co u r t o f la s t r e s o r t is Case: 08-41287 Document: 00511093783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 08- 41287

3 t i m e l y w he n i t i s f

i l e d w i t h t he Cl e r k w i t hi n 90 da ys af t e r e nt r y o f

t h e order d e n y in gd is cretion a ryrev ie w .” H e r e , u n lik e in Andr ade
-Agui lar , w her e o nl y 115 da ys pa s s e d b e t w e e n t he pr i o rj udg e m en tof co nvi c t i o n a nd the s ubs e que nt of fen se, t h e passage of 362 day s i s en ou gh t o est abli sh that th e pri or c on vi ct i on w a s “fin a l” fo rth e p u r p o s e s o f § 8 4 4 (a ). S ee 5 7 0 F .3 da t 2 1 7 -1 8 & n .6 . Pu i l do- I sl as ’ s ar gum ent s c onc er ni ng § 851 ar e al so unavai l i ng. Al t hough he i ndi c at es t h a t h i s ar gum entc onc er ni ng § 851 “ appear s”t o b e f or ec l os ed by t hi s c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Un i t ed Stat es v. Cepeda
- R i os , 5 3 0 F . 3 d3 3 3 , 33 5 -36 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), h e a ls o co n te n d s t h a th is a r g u m e n t d iffe r s fr o m th e o n e reje c te din Cep eda
- R i os . Sp ecif

i cal l y, he argu es t h at hi s l aterpossess i on convi ct i on does not q u a l i fy as a n ag gr a va tedfelon y b eca u se th ere h a s be en n o sh ow i n g th a t a state pr o s e c ut o rpr o s e c ut i ng t hatca s e i nvo ke d p r o c e dur e s e quiva l e ntt o t ho s e s e to ut i n § 8 51 . As w e no t e d i n Cepeda
- R i os , “t he r e l e va nti nquir y u n der t he sentenci n g gu i del i n es i s w h et h er t h e cr i m e i s pu n i sha ble und er§ 844( a) . ” 530 F . 3dat 336 n. 11 (em ph asi s i n ori gi n al) . T h e governm en tsat i sf i ed i t s burd en of p r o o f in th a t r e g a r d . T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 08-41287 Document: 00511093783 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2010