### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 41132

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. J AVI ER A NDRADE- AGUI LA R , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp eal f

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

B ef ore B A R K S D A L E , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es. JE N N IFE R W

. E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg e: Jav i er A n drad e- A gu i l ar (A n drad e) app eal s t h e di st ri ct court’ s i m posi t i on of an ei gh t

- l evel sentence enh an cem en t f ol l ow i n g h i s gui l t y- pl ea conv i ct i on f or i l l egal reentry i n t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates i n vi ol ati on of 8 U

. S

. C

. § 132 6. H e argu es t h at hi s s econd of

t w o pri or s t ate l aw convi ct i on s f or posses si on of

a contr ol l ed subs t ance doe s not qual i f y as an “ aggr avat ed f el ony” under t he Feder al Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , b e c a u s e t h e Go v e r nm e nt di d no t s ho w t hatt he pr e c e di ng c o nvi c t i o n was f

i nala t t he t i m e he c o m m i t t e d t he s e c o nd o f fe ns e . W e a gr e e , a nd accordi n gl y reverse. United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 27, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 41132

2 I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS T h e d i stri ct cou rt ad op ted the con cl u sion of th e p rese n ten ce re p ort ( “P S R ”) t hatAndr ad e ’ s s e c o nd s t at e l aw c o nvi c t i o n fo r si m pl e pos s e s s i o n of l e s s t han o ne gram of

coc ai n e qu al i f

i ed as an “ agg ra v a t ed fel on y” u n der U n i t ed S t ates Sent enc i ng G ui del i ne § 2L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( C )

. Th i s f i ndi ng of

r ec i di vi sm t r i gge r ed an eigh t- l ev el en h a n cem en t. Andr ad e o bj e c t e d t o t hi s f i ndi ng, b o t h i n hi s w r i t t e n r e s po ns e t o t he PSR
an d at sentenci n g. H e contended t h at h i s f i rstst ate l aw convi ct i on w as not yet f i n al by the t i m e he com m i t t ed the second st ate l aw of fen se, an d that t h e l att er c onvi c t i on c oul d not th ere fore b e con sider ed an “ag gr a va ted felon y” und erf ede r al l aw . Ju dg m en t f

or t h e f i rst st ate l aw of

fen se w as en t ered, an d a sentence i m posed , on Ju l y 16, 200 1 ( “ t h e J u l y convic t i on ” )

. T h e secon d st ate l aw of fen se o c c ur r e d s l i ght l y l e s s t han fou r m on t hs l at e r , o n N o ve m be r 9 , 2 00 1 ( “ t he N o v e m b e r o ffen se ”). I I . DI S CU S S I ON A

. Stan d ard of

R evi ew W e r e vi e w t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s i nt e r pr e t at i on and a ppl i c at i o n o f t he G u i del i n es de no vo . Uni t e d St at e s v . Adam , 2 9 6 F .3d 3 2 7 , 3 3 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). B

. Mer its 1. “Aggr av at e d Fe l o ny” und e r t he CSA S ect i on 2L 1. 2(b) ( 1) ( C ) of t h e F ederal Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es provi des f or an ei ght

- l eve lenhance m ent i f t he def

endant has bee n co nvi c t ed of an

“ agg ravated fel on y. ” T h e t erm “ agg ravated fel on y” i n § 2L 1. 2(b) ( 1) ( C ) i n cl u des “an y f elon y pu n i sh a b l e un d er t h e C on troll ed S u b stan ces A ct [C S A ]. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. C epeda

- R i os , 5 30 F. 3d 3 33 , 3 34 ( 5t h C i r . 2 00 8) ( quo t at i o n m ar ks
om i t t ed) ( em ph asi s om i t t ed). O u r i n i t i al p oi n t of i n qu i ry, theref ore, is w h et h er e i t he r o f

Andr ad e ’ s s t at e l aw c o nvi c t i on s i s p uni s hab l e a s a “ fe l o ny” und e r t he CS A.N o. 07- 41132

Our p r e - a n dpost- Lop ez decisi ons agree that th e finalityqu estionis oneof federal 1 law. See United States v. Fazan de , 487 F.3 d 307 , 308 (5th Cir. 2007) (p ost- Lopez); United States v. Morales , 854 F.2d 65 , 68 (5 th Cir. 1 988) (pre- Lopez) (“Wemayex amin e state l aw, for info rm ati on al purp os es , b u t weare n ot b ou n d b y it s tre atm ent of af el onyc onvic ti onwh enwe a pp lyth e fe de ral se nte n ce -e nh a n ce me nt pr ovis io n s.”). This is a cruci al distinctionfrom the cases that wereth e fo cus of th e l etter brie fs fil ed 2 b yth e partie s inthisc a se : U n i t e dSt a t e sv . C

e p e da - R i os , 53 0 F .3d 3 33, 335(5th Cir. 2 008) (n otin gth at de fe n da nt di d n otc onte stth e fin ality o f hisp ri orst ate -l a w c onvic ti on); United States v. Rosales -Hurt ado , 3 0 9F

. App ’x9 0 9 , 9 1 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9) (s a me); Un ited St atesv . CruzMeza , 20 09 WL 330 900 , at*5(5th Cir. F eb. 11, 200 9) (unpubli shed) (defen dant fail ed toassert bel ow that h e h ad appeal ed his prior state-law convictionor that it “ was ot herwise notfinal befo re he committed” th e subsequent fede ral offen se) (emph asis added). Andra de challen ge d the finalityof his priorstat e-law convictionboth at sente nci ngan d onapp eal

. 3 T h e Su prem e Cour tha s a do pt e d t he “ hyp o t he t i c alf e de ralfel on y” ap proach to d eterm i n e w h eth er a pr i or sta te l a w con victi on con sti tu tes a felon y: cou rts lo o k to p a r a lle l fe d e r a l la w t o s e e w h e th e r th e o ffe n s e , if p r o s e c u te d fe d e r a lly (h e r e , u n d e r th e C S A ), co u ld ca r r y a s e n te n c e e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r . Lopezv. G on zal es , 549 U

. S. 47, 56 & n. 7, 60 ( 2006)

. Th e par t i es agr ee t hat under fede r al l aw, o nl y Andr ad e ’ s c o nvi c t i o n f o r t he N o ve m be r o f

fe ns e c o u l d c ar r y s uc h a sentence, an d on l y i f A n drad e com m i t t ed that of fen se af t er “ a p rio r c on vi ct i on f or any drug , na rcot i c, or chem i calof fen se c h argeab l e un der t h e l aw of an y S t ate, has b e c o m e f

i nal

. ” 21 U

. S

. C

. § 84 4( a) (em ph asi s add ed). Th eref ore, t h e na rrow qu est i on bef

ore us i s w h et h er A n drad e’ s f i rstst ate l aw convi ct i on , j u dg m en t of
w hi c h was e nt e r e d J ul y 16 , 200 1, w as “ f i nal” f o r pur po s e s o f

§ 8 44 ( a) ( and t hus § 2 L1. 2) by t he t i m e he c om m i t t ed hi s se c ond s t at e l aw of fens e o n N ove m ber9, 2 0 0 1
. A n d r a d e p r e s e r v e d t h e is s u e o f fin a li t y b y o b je c t in g t o t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s

1 de t e r m i nat i o n o f

t hatq ue s t i o n. 2 2. “ Fi nal i t y” und e r t he CSA T h e G overnm en t contends that t h e fact of t h e Ju l y convic t i on , com bi n ed
w i t h t he pa s s ag e o f

ne ar l y f o ur m o nt hs , r e nde r e d t he J ul y c o nvi c t i o n f i nalb y t he t i m e o f t he N o ve m be r o f

fe ns e . The di s t r i c t c o ur t i ni t i al l y ac cepted t he G o v e r n m e n t’s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e J u ly co n v ic tio n w a s fin a l, st a tin g : “W e ll, Ex h i b i t 1 h a s – o r E x h ib i t 2 h a s a s t a mp t h a t s a y s , ‘Ap p e a lwa i v e d

. NoN o. 07- 41132

The Government co mpoun d edt he c on fusionof the two co nvicti ons in its b rief, but 3 admitte d th e e rror at oralar gu ment. 4 perm i ssi on t o app eal gran t ed. ’ ” E xh i bi t2, how ever, i s A n drad e’ s s e c o nd state l aw c o nvi c t i o n— t he c o nvi c t i o n f o r t he N o ve m be r o f

fe ns e . Cou ns e lf

o r Andr ad e cl a ri fi ed th i s, b u t h i s ob j ection w a s ov erru l ed

. T h e d i stri ct cou rt pro cee d ed to 3 reci t e i n f

orm ati on pert ai n i n g t o t h e st ate l aw convi ct i on s. [A n drad e’ s] obj ect i on ’ s overr u l ed. T h e C ou rtf i n ds t h at t h ey do m eet – I m ean , t h ere i s s u ffi ci en t evi den ce i n t h e rec ord of – of t h e fact t ha t t he y ’ r e –c a us e n um b e r 8 8 2 0 8 9
. Th e d a t e o f t he o f fe ns e w as 7 /13 /01

. T h e d a te of ju d g m e n t w a s 7 /16 /01 [th e J u ly c o n v iction ]. Sent enc e w as i m pos ed 7/ 16/ 01. In G ov ern m en t’ s E xh i b i t 2, w h i ch i s th e j u d gm en t on a plea of gu i l ty in ca u s e n u m b e r8 9 3 4 6 5 , th e d a te o f a r r e s t – o r d a te o f o ffe n s e is 11 / 9/ 20 01 [ t he N o ve m be r of fe ns e ]

. The a dj udi c at i o n a nd j udg m e nt i s D ecem ber 12th, 2 0 01, f or posses si on of

coc ai n e f

or w h i ch there w as a s e nt e nc e o f

— I m e an, s o i t w as a fe l o ny o f fe ns e f o r w hi c h he w as — re ce ived one yea r and — an d i t ’ s got age, JC , w h i ch c o r r e s po nds t o t he s e c t i o n w hi c h i ndi c at e s t hat t he s e nt e nc e
— t he p u n is h m e n t im p o s e d is o n e y e a r in th e H a r r is C o u n ty J a il. A n d so pu rsuan t t o t h at evi den ce, the C ou rtf i n ds t h at i t i s a – t h ese convic t i on s are consi dered a dru g t raf f i cki n g cri m e . . . becau se t h ey a r e p u n i s h a b l e u n d e r t h e [ CS A] a n d a r e fe l o n i e s u n d e r fe d e r a ll a w.
T h e court i m posed an ei gh t

- l evel enh an cem en t
. Itthen a dop t ed t h e fi n di n gs of t h e P S R , w h i ch cal cul ated A n drad e’ s t ot al of fen se l evel t o be 13— a ba se l evel of ei gh t , pl u s t h e enh an cem en t of e ight, m i n u s t h ree l evel s f or acc eptan ce of resp on sibi l i ty— a n d sen ten ced h i m to 34 m on th s’ con fi n em en t. T h ere i s no i n di cat i on on the face of t h e J u ly co n vi ct i on ( E xh i bi t 1) or el sew h ere i n t h e rec ord t h at A n drad e w ai ved app eal of t h e Ju l y convic t i on . For t he e nhan c em ent t o have be en c or r ec t , t her ef or e, t he Jul y c onvi c ti on m ust be sho w n t o have be en f i nal as of

N ove m ber9, 2001.N o. 07- 41132

Additio nally , th e Governme ntar gu e sth at An drade waived appell ate review o f fin ality 4 byfailin g to pr esentevidence thath e had appealed the first c onvicti on. However, b ecau se th e bur den to de monstrate finalitywas the Government’s, this argu ment is o f noav ail

. 5 3. Bur de n o f

D e m o ns t r at i ng Fi nal i t y unde r t he CSA Bec aus e t he G o ve r nm e nt s o ugh t t he s e nt e nc i ng e nhan c e m e nt , i t b o r e t he b u r d e n to de m on strate f i n a lity

. Uni t e d St at e s v . He r r e r a- Solo rz ano , 114 F. 3d 48, 50 (5t h C i r. 199 7) ( “ T h e bu rd en i s on t h e party s eeking to adj u st t h e sentence le v e l to p r o v e b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e re le v a n t a n d s u ffic i e n tly re lia b le
ev id e n ce” t h at a pri or c on vi ct i on qu al i f i es f or t h e enh an cem en t
. ) ( qu ot ati on
m ar ks o m i t t e d)

. I n He r r e r a - So l o r z ano , w e vacated t h e defen da n t ’ s s en t en ce becau se “ [ t ] h e di st ri ctcourt err ed i n fai l i n g t o pu t t h e governm en t t o i t s burd en of pr ovi ng, by a pr epo nder ance of t he e vi denc e, t hat [ def endant ] i ndeed w as sen ten ced to a p ri son term of a t l ea st f i ve ye a rs. ” Id

. The G o ve r nm e nt
c o m pl ai ns t hatAndr ad e fai l e d t o “ de m o ns t r at e t hatt he e ar l i e r c o c ai ne po s s e s s i o n c o nvi c t i o n [ t he J ul y c o nvi c t i o n] w as no t f i n al at t he t i m e he
c o m m i t t e d the s e c o nd c o c ai ne po s s e s s i o n o f fe ns e . ” But j us t a s i n He r r e r aSol o rz ano , i t w as t h e G overnm en t ’ s burd en t o dem on st rat e t h at fact , not A n drad e’ s. W e w i l lnow t u rn to t h e qu est i on w h et h er t h e G overnm en t di d so. I n c l ai m i ng t hat the Jul y co nvi c t i on w as f i nal , the G ove r nm ent c i t es : ( 1) t he j udg m en t of

c onvi c t i on i t se l f, ( 2) t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s m i st aken i ni t i al
c onc l usi on t hat t hat appealhad be en s tam ped “A ppealw ai ved, ” and ( 3) Texas R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 2 6 .2 (a ). T h e G o v e r n m e n t a ls o co m p la in s g e n e r a lly 4
o f t he di f

f i c ul t y o f pr o vi ng a ne ga t i ve ( a de fe nda nt ’ s fai l ur e t o a ppe al)

. W e f i nd
n on e of t h ese argum en t s persuasi ve. Fi r s t , he r e a s i n He r r e r a- Solo rz ano , the j udgm ent of c onvi c t i on i s not c l ear e n o u g h on th e co n tro ll in g q u e s t io n to b e p ro b a tiv e (m u ch les s d isp o sitiv e ): in d e e d , it co n ta in s n o s u g g e s tio n o f w a iv e r o r fin a lity w h a ts o e v e r . Se e He r r e r aSol o rz ano , 114 F. 3d at50. Sec ond, as not ed ab ove and ul t i m at el y c onc ede d by t h e G overnm en t at oralargu m en t , th e rel evan t convi ct i on w as not st am pedN o. 07- 41132

A petitionfor a writ of certi orari to the Unit ed State s Supre me Court “se eking review 5 of aj udg ment of a lo wer stat e co urt that i s subje ct todiscr etio nary review b y the state court of l ast r esort is ti melywhenitis file d withth e C lerk within90day s afte r entryof the order denying discr etio nary review.” S UP . C T . R

. 1 3 (1 ). I nso mec a se s, th e pa ssa ge of asub st a nti al pe ri odo f ti memayits elf sati sf yth es e 6 re qu ir em ents
. See, e.g., United States v. Vasqu ez , 29 8 F .3d 3 54, 359(5th Cir. 2 002 ) (dee ming convicti on final wh ere 334day s ha d el apsed betwee n d ate of prior c onvicti on and date of subsequent offe nse). Here, ho w ever, th e gap b etweenth e prior (July) convicti on, at which sente nce was impose d, an d th e subsequent (November) offense was 11 5 days. I f Andra de timelyfil ed adir ect appeal of his Julyconvicti on, that co nvicti on mayn ot h ave b eenfin al at the time of his Nove mber offen se. Even if any direc t appeal was unsu ccessful , a petition for discretionary review filed befo re the November offen se with the state court—or with the U.S. Sup rem e Court , if

deniedby the s tat e cour t— may have been ti me ly. 6 “A pp eal w ai ved

. ” Th i rd, T exas R u l e o f A p pel l ate Procedu re 26. 2( a) provi des
m erel y t h at t h e defen da n t h as 30 days f rom t h e date of

sentenci n g t o f

i l e a di rect ap pea l

. U n cl ear f

rom t h e recor d, h ow ever, i s w h et h er t h e peri od f or bot h di rect and di s c r e t i o nar y r e vi e w ha d e xp i r e d. W e ha ve e xp l ai ne d: [ T ] h e f i n al

- convic t i on l an gu age of § 841(b) ( 1) ( B ) app l i es t o a convic t ion w h i ch i s no l on ger subj ect t o exam i n ati on on d i rect ap pea l , incl u di n g an a pp l i cat i on forcert i orarito the U n i t ed S t ates Supr e m e Cour t , ei t he r b e c aus e o f di s po s i t i o n o n a ppe ala nd concl u si on of

t h e app el l ate proc ess, or be ca u se of t h e passage, wi t h o u t a c t i o n , o f

t h e t i me f

o r s e e k i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Moral es , 8 54 F. 2d 6 5, 69 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 88 )

. I n S m i t h v. G on zal es, 5
w e fo u n d th e p r o v is io n s re q u ir in g fin a lity o f s ta te c o u r t co n v ic tio n s co n ta in e d in § 844 ( a) to b e a n al ogou s to that f ou n d i n § 84 1(b) ( 1)

. 468 F

. 3d 272 , 277 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g t h e l a n g u a g e a b o v e f r o m Moral es )

. Thus , t o s ho w f i nal i t y, t he G ove r nm ent w as r equi r ed t o s how by a pr epo nder ance of t he e vi denc e b ot h t hat ( 1) A n drad e’ s July c on v iction w as “ n o l on ger subj ect t o exam i n ati on on d i rect
a p p e a l” w ith in th e m e a n in g of Moral es , and (2) th a t it w a s n ot su b j ect to di scr et i on ary revi ew by an y court
. S e e id

. at277 –7 8 ( f i ndi ng t hatt he de ad l i ne for a d ire ct a p p e a l h a d p a ss e d b u t d iscr e tion a ry re v iew w a s s til l a v a il a b le). H ow ever, t h e G overnm en t fai l ed to e stabl i sh ei t h er of t h ese t w o fact s. 6 Acc o r di ngl y, t he G o ve r nm e nt fai l e d t o pr o ve b y a “ pr e po nde r anc e o f t he r e l e va ntN o. 07- 41132

Andra de argu es th at the Government i s gett in g a s ec ond bit e at th e apple when it 7 alre adyh ad a mple opportu nityto meet its b urdeninth e di strict court. While this argument h a s s om e fo rc e, o u r pr ec ed ent favor s r em a n d. See, e. g., U n ited St atesv . Ma rt in ez -P

aram o , 38 0 F.3 d 79 9, 806 (5th Cir. 2 004) (ob serving th at “theGovernme nt should h ave alrea dy obtaine d and introduce d all o f th e re lev antdoc uments into the rec or d”

—ba s ic docume nts su ch as a n info rmatio n, pl ea agree m e nt , an d ple a c oll oquy—b ut neverth eless reman ding for resentenc ing a n d su pp le me ntati ono f th e re co rd). 7 and s uf f i c i e nt l y r e l i ab l e e vi de nc e ” t hatAndr ad e ’ s J ul y c o nvi c t i o n was f i nala nd t hus t hat hi s c o nvi c t i o n f o r t he N o ve m be r o f

fe ns e q ual i f

i e d f o r t he e nhan c e m e nt im p o s e d

. He r r e r a- Solo rz ano , 114 F. 3d at 50. 4. E rrornot H arm l ess W e f urt her f i nd t hat t he e r r orw as nothar m l es s. An dra de c onc ede s t hat h e ma y h a v e b e e n e l i g i b l e f o r a f o u r - l e v e li n c r e a s e u n d e r U. S

. S

. G. §2L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( D ) , w hi c h he c l ai m s w oul d yi el d a t ot alof fens e l eve lof

10. O n t hat
an al ysi s, gi ven h i s cri m i n al h i st ory cat egory of V I, t h e ap propri ate G u id el i n es ran ge w ou l d h ave been 24 to 30 m on t h s’i m pri sonm en t
. A pp l yi n g a tot al of fen se l e ve lo f 1 4, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t c al c ul at e d t he r ang e a s 33– 41 m o nt hs , s e nt e nc i ng A n drad e t o 34 m on t h s. A n d ra d e t h eref ore r ecei ved at l east f ou r m on t h s m ore t han t he l onges t se nt enc e und er t he hars hes t G ui del i nes r ange f orw hi c h he m ay h ave been eli gi bl e. T h e d i st ri ctcou rtd i d n ot indic ate an y dep art u re orbasi s f or dep art u re f

rom a G u i del i n es s en t en ce.

I I I . ON RE M A ND O n r em and, the G ove r nm ent w i l lbear t he bur den of dem ons t r at i ng by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e r e l e v a n t a n d s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l i a b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t , a t t h e t i me of hi s N ovem ber of

fen se, A n drad e’ s July c on vi ct i on w as subjec t t o exam i n ati on
n e ith e r b y ( 1 ) d ir e c t r e v ie w in th e T e x a s co u r ts n o r (2 ) d is c r e tio n a r y re v ie w in
a n y co u r t. S m ith , 4 6 8 F .3 d a t 2 7 7 ; He r r e r a- Solo rz ano , 1 1 4 F .3 d a t 5 0 ; Moral es , 854 F. 2d at69. The key i ss ue w i l lbe w het her A ndrade ’ s Jul y c onvi c t i on w as fin a l, w ith in th e m e a n in g of Moral es , by the t i m e of hi s N ovem ber of

fen se. 7N o. 07- 41132

8 I V . C ONC L US I ON Fo r t h e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e s e n t e n c e o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s VAC AT ED AN D RE M AN D ED f o r pr o c e e di ngs c o ns i s t e nt w i t h t hi s o pi ni o n.