Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41337 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. FR AN CI SCO D E JESU S RO D RI G U EZ , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8
- CR- 6 9 7
- ALL B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L L Y , W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * D efen da n t - A pp el l an tF ran ci sco D e Jesus Rodri gue z (“R o dri gu ez” ) pl ead ed guil t y t o b e i ng f

o und unl awf

ul l y i n t he U ni t e d St at e s a f t e rde po r t at i o n a nd f ol l ow i n g a convic t i on f or an agg ravated fel on y. T h e pre- sentence i n vest i gati on r epo r t( “ PS R ” ) i ncl uded a bas e l eve lof fens e o f ei gh t, w h i ch w as i ncr eas ed by ei gh tt o 16 becau se R odri gu ez ha d tw o pri or f el on y dru g convic t i on s. Th e U n i t ed St at e s Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s ( “ U . S. S. G . ” ) y i e l de d ar e c o m m e nde d s e nt en ce United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 8, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 41337

2 ra n ge of 3 3 to 41 m on th s. T h e dist ri ct cou rt sen ten ced R od ri gu ez to a 3 3 m on th term of i m p ri son m en t. R odri gu ez a pp eal s h i s t erm of i m pri sonm en t , contending that t h e di st ri ct court com m i t t ed r eversibl e err or by t reat i n g t h e sec on d of hi s pri or posses si on c o nvi c t i o ns a s a n a gg r av at e d f e l o ny. Sp e c i f

i c al l y, he a r gue s t hatt he g o ve r n m e nt fai l ed t o pr ove t hat( 1) t he o f fens e under l yi ng t he f i r sts u ch co nvi c t i on had be c o m e f

i nalb y t he t i m e t hathe co m m i t t e d t he s e c o nd s uc h o f fe ns e ; a nd ( 2) t he se c ond pr i orpos se ssi on c onvi c t i on w as s ec ure d i n co m pl i ance w i t h pro c edur al requ i rem en t s. I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS A . F a c ts I n June 2008, R odr i guez w as c harge d by i ndi c t m entw i t h vi ol at i ng 8 U . S . C . § 1326 (b) f

or bei n g f

ou n d i n t h e U n i t ed S ta te s f ol l ow i n g dep ort ati on w i t h ou tha vi n g o b tai n ed the consen tof t h e A t t orney G en eralt o re- ap pl y f or a d m i ssion . D a ys later, a n dw i th ou t a p l ea a gr ee m en t, R od ri gu ez plea d ed gu i l ty in d is tr ic t c o u r t. T h e P S R i n cl u ded a base of fen se l evelof

ei gh t , w h i ch w as enh an ced a n o t h e re i g h tl e v e l s o n t h e g r o u n dt h a tR o d r i g u e z h a db e e n c o n v i c t e do f t wo pri or s t ate drug p osses si on convi ct i on s, q u al i f yi n g t h e secon d as an “ agg ravated fe l o ny. ” The Pro ba t i o n O f f i c e re ac he d t hi s enha nc e m e ntb y c o nc l udi ng t hatt he second con vi ct i on f

or s i m pl e po sses si on w as a “ fel on y” u n der t h e rec i di vi stcl au se of 21 U . S. C . § 844 (“ § 8 44” ) , and w as t her ef or e “ drug t r af

f i c ki ng” and t hus an “a g g r a v a te d ” fe lo n yu n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(B ) a n dU .S .S .G . § 2L 1. 2(b) ( 1) ( C ) . T h e P S R recom m en ded red u ci n g t h i s enh an ced l evelof si xteen b yth r e e fo ra c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s ib il it y . I n c o m b in a t io n w it h R o d r ig u e z ’s C r i m i nal H i st or y C at ego r y of V I , t hi s of f ens e l eve lof

13 y i el ded a se nt enc e r ange o f 3 3 to 4 1 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. B . P ro ce ed i n g sN o. 08- 41337

United States v. Villegas , 40 4 F .3d 3 55, 359(5th Cir. 2 005) (referring to United States 1 v. Booker , 5 4 3U .S . 2 2 0(2 0 0 5)) . 3 A thi s s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng, Rod r i gue z o bj e c t e d t o t he PSR’ s e i ght
- l evel e n h a n c e m e n t fo rh is s e c o n dp r io rd r u gp o s s e s s io n c o n v ic tio n , c o n te n d in gth a t it w as not an “ agg ravated fel on y” u n der U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2(b) ( 1) ( C ) becau se hi s f i rst pri orc onvi c t i on w as “ notf i nal” f or§ 844( a) purpo se s; R odr i guez as se r t ed t hat th e en h a n cem en t l ev el sho u l dh a ve be en f ou r an dn ot eigh t. I n t he fac e o f

t hi s o bj e c t i o n to the PSR , t he g o ve r nm e nto f fe r e d, w i t ho ut o bj e c t i o n, t he s t at e c o ur ti ndi c t m e nt s a nd j udg m e nt s f o rb o t h pr i o rdr ug c o nvi c t i o ns . The di s t r i c tc o ur to ve r r ul e d Ro dr i gue z ’ s o bj e c t i o n a nd h e l d t hatt he tw o p r io rco n v ic tio n s q u a lifie d th e s e n te n c e “fo r a n e n h a n c e m e n t of e ig h t le v e ls given t h e na t u re and t i m in go f th ose c on vi ct i on s. ” A f t er, t h e courtsentenced R odri gu ez t o a t erm of 33 m o n th s i n pri son, a t h ree- year peri od of sup ervi sed r e le a s e , a n da$ 1 0 0 s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t, h e tim e lyfile dan o tic e o f a p p e a l. Rodr i gue z b as e s t he a ppe alo f hi s s e nt e nc e on t w o g r o unds . Fi r s t , he i n si st s t h at t h e sec on d of hi s posses si on convi ct i on s s h ou l d n otha ve been deem ed an aggrav ated fel on y f or pu rposes of U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2(b) ( 1) ( C ) becau se t h e governm en tha d n ot born e i t s bu rden of provi n g t h at h i s second p osses si on o ffe n s e w a s co m m itt e da fte rh is f i r s tp o s s e s s io n co n v ic tio n h a db e c o m e fin a l. S ec o nd, he a s s e r t e d t hatt he g o ve r nm e ntfai l e d t o pr o ve t hatt he s e c o nd c onvi c t i on w as s ec ure d i n co m pl i ance w i t h 21 U . S. C . § 851. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW

“ [W ] hen a di st r i ct co u rthas i m pos ed a se nt enc e undert he [ Sent enc i ng] G u i del i n es, t h i s c ou rtconti n u es af t er B ooker t o r e v ie w th e d is t r ic tc o u r t 's i n t erpret ati on an d ap pl i cat i on of t h e G u i del i n es de no vo .” 1N o. 08- 41337

Indee d, heso conc edes and advanc es this contentiononlyto preserve it forfu rther 2 review. 5 3 0F .3 d 3 3 3( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 8).

3 Id. at33 6 n .11. 4 United States v. Herrera-Solorzano , 1 1 4F .3 d 4 8 , 5 0( 5 thC ir .1 9 9 7) 5 United States v. Andrade-Aguilar , 57 0 F .3d 2 13, 218 (5th Cir. 200 9) (internal citation s 6 om mitted). 4 III . A N A L Y S IS A s ath r e s h o ldm a tt e r , w e co n c lu d e th a t R o d r i g u e z ’s s e c o n dcla im is unav ai l i ng. I n Un i ted S t ate s v. Cepeda
- R i os , w e h e ldth a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t is

2 3 n o t r e q u ir e dto co m p lys tr ic tlyw ith th e p r o c e d u r a l re q u ir e m e n ts o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 851 w h en i ti s not t h e prosecuti n g pa rt y. Th e on ly q u est i on f or purp oses of sentence enh an cem en ti s w h et h er t h e of fen se w as p u n ish a b leu n d e r2 1 U. S . C. § 844 ( a) . H ere, t h e of fen se w as so pun i sha bl e. 4 Rodr i gue z ’ s f

i r s tc l ai m i s l i ke w i s e una va i l i ng. I ti s t r u e tha ti n s e e ki ng s e nt e nc e e nh a nc e m e nt , t he g o v e r nm e nt ha s t he b ur d e n o f p r o v i ngby a prepon deran ce of

t h e evi den ce that t h e sentence qu al i f i es f or enh an cem en t . For 5 R od ri gu ez ’ s seco n dpo sse ssion con victi on to su p p ort en h a n cem en t pu rsu a n t t o § 8 44( a) , t he go ver nm enthad t o pr ove by a pr epo nder ance of the evi denc e t hat t h e sec on d of

hi s pri or posses si on of fen ses w as com m i t t ed aft er th e firs tsuch convic t i on ha d becom e f i n al . S peci f

i cal l y, t h e governm en tw as requir ed to show t hatt he f

i r stpr i orconvi c t i on i s no l ongers ubj ec tt o e xam i nat i on o n di r ec tappeal o rto d is c r e tio n a r yre v ie w b ya n yco u r t. T h e n a r r o w q u e s tio n b e fo r e u s is 6 w h et h er t h e gover n m e n tbore i t s burd en of show i n g such f

i n al i t y of

t h e f i rst pri or c on vi ct i on bef

ore R odri gu ez com m i t t ed the second off en se. A s evi den ce of

f i n al i t y, t h e governm en tentered i n t o ev iden ce t h e f i rst i ndi c t m e nta nd j udg m e nto f c o nvi c t i o n. W e f

i nd no e vi de nc e i n t he r e c o r d — a ndN o. 08- 41337

4 6 8F .3 d 2 7 2( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 6). 7 Id. at27 7. 8Texa s R . App . P . 2 6 .2 9 5 R odri gu ez poi n t s t o non e — tha thi s 1990 convi ct i on w as st i l lon ap pea l(i f i tever w a s) or u n d er d i scre ti on a ryre view in a n y T ex a s ap p ell a te cou rt or fed era lcou rt, att he t i m e i n 1 99 3 w he n he c o m m i t t e d hi s s e c o nd p o s s e s s i o n o f fe ns e . To t he c ont r a ry, i ti s evi dentf r om t he o nl y e vi denc ed adduc ed byeit herpar t y t hat ap pr o xi m at e l y t hr e e y e ar s ha d p as s e d b e t w e e n t he f i r s tconvi ct i o n a nd t he c o m m i s s i o n o f

t he s e c o nd o f

fe nse . As w e no t e d i n S m i t h v. G on zales , t he 7 pa ssage of a sub st an t i al am ou n t of t i m e w i t h ou t t h e defenda n t ’ s s eeking dir ect of di sc r et i onar y appe l l at e r evi ew m ay r endert hatc onvi c t i on f i nalf or§ 844( a) p u rp ose s. R od ri gu ez ’ s w i n d ow for a p p ea l i n g h i s 19 9 0 po sse ssion con victi on to

8 t he Texas appel l at e c our t w as t hi r t y days . R odr i guez has not c l ai m ed t o have 9 ap pe al e d t hatc o nvi c t i o n, m uc h l e s s t o hav e s o ugh t di s c r e t i o nar y r e vi e w , andt he pa ssage of

t h ree years w ou l d m ak e t h e p o ss ibi l i t y of t h e 199 0 conv i ct i on not bei n g f i n ali n 199 3 u n l i kely i n t h e ext rem e. I n l i gh tof t h e el ap se of

t h ree years betw een t h e f

i rstconvi ct i on an d the c o m m i s s i o n of t h e sec on d p osses si on of fen se, w e c o nc l u d e th a tth e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s u n c o nt r o ve r t e d p r o f fe ro f t he 1 99 0 i ndi c t m e nt an d j u dg m en tof

convi ct i on at t h e sentenci n g h earin gs a tisf i ed i t s burd en of p ro o f. IV . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, t h e di st ri ct court’ s j u dg m en ti s, i n al lres pects , AF F I RMED.