## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t8,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH 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 E S US CO RD OVA- AR E VAL O, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2013

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt for t he D i s t ri ct of

N ew M exi co ( D. C. No . CR- 0 4 - 1 1 5 9 J B) T err i J . A bernathy , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( D avi d C . I gl es i as , U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , on t he br i ef) L as C ruces , N ew M exi co, forPl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee. R ich a rd C . C a u b le, L a s C ru c e s, N e w M e x ico , fo r D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t.

B efor e B RI S CO E , ANDE RS ON and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. O’ BRI EN , C i r cui tJ udge. O n Ju n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , Je su s C o rd o v a -A re v a lo (C o rd o v a -A re v a lo ) p led g u iltyto ille g a lly re e n te ri n g th e U n ite d S ta te s a f te r d e p o rt a tio n in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1326( a) ( 1) , ( 2) . T he pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( PSR ) r ecomm ended aT he PSR appl i ed the 2003 edi t i on of the gui del i ne manual i n det erm i ni ng 1 i t s s ent ence r ecomm endat i on. U SSG §2L 1. 2, U nl aw ful l yE nt er i ng orR emai ni ng i n the U ni t e d St a t e s , i s the a pp l i c a bl e gu i de l i ne fo r§ 1 32 6 c on vi c t i on s . U SSG §2L 1. 2 pr ovi des i n r el evantpart : “[I ] f the defendantpr evi ous l yw as depor t ed, or u n law f u llyre m a in e d in th e U n ited S tate s a f ter a c o n v ictio n fo r a fe lo n y. . . tha t is a c r i me o f

v i o l e n c e . . . i n c r e a s e [ th e o ffe n s e l e v e l ] b y1 6 l e v e l s . . . . ” A “ c r i me o f v io le n c e ” is d e fin e d , in tera lia , as “anyoffe ns e underfede r al , s t at e orl ocal l aw thathas as an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, ort hr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on of another . ” U SSG § 2L 1. 2, comm ent . ( n. 1( B ) ( i i i ) ) . T he g u id e lin e , li k e th e sta tu te, d o e s n o t d e fin e th e ter m fe lo n y . B u t a d e fin iti o n is su p p lied in th e c o m m e n tar yto § 2 L 1 .2 w h ich d e fin e s a fe lo n ya s “ a n yfe d e ra l, s t at e, orl ocal offe ns e puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm entfora t erm exce edi ng one y ea r. ” U S S G § 2 L 1 . 2 , co m m en t. (n. 2). C or dova- A r eval o’ s bas e offens e l evel w as ei ght . T he s i xt een- l evel 2 enh ancem ent i m po sed pu rs uan tt o U S S G §2 L 1. 2 resul t ed in an adj ust ed o ffen se leve l of tw en ty -fo u r. C o rdo v a-A rev alo a lso rec eive d a thre e-lev el do w n w ard adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of tw enty - one. F o rth i s o ffe n s e th e Co l o r a d o c o u r ts e n t e n c e d Co r d o v a - Ar e v a l o t o t i me 3 s erved ( t en day s i n j ai l ) and r emanded hi m t o I N S cus t odyfordepor t at i on proceed i ng s. -2- s i xt een- l evel enhanc ementpur s uantt o U SSG §2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) , tr eat i ng C or dovaA r eval o’ s pr i orC ol or ado convi ct i on ( thi r d degr ee a s s aul t ) as a fe l onycr i m e of vi ol ence . T he enha ncementr es ul t ed i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of tw enty - one.

1 2 C oupl ed w i th a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I V , C or dova- A r eval o’ s s ent enci ng g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s fif ty-s e v e n to s e v e n ty-o n e m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. C or dova- A r eval o di d notcont es tt he PSR ’ s s i xt een- l evel enhanc ement r ecomm endat i on. R atherhe ar gued thatbeca us e C ol or ado cl as s i fi es hi s pr i or co n v ict ion as a m isde m ea n o r, h e sh o u ld b e se n tenc ed u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (a), 3 w hi ch caps a s ent ence attw o y ear s i ncar cer at i on. T he governm entdefe nded theA C ol or ado thi r d degr ee a s s aul ti s cat egor i cal l ya cr i m e of vi ol ence under 4 th e s e c o n d p ro n g o f

U S S G § 4 B 1 .2 (a ). Uni t ed Stat es v. Kr ej car ek , — F. 3d — , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 8 9 2 5 7 3 , * 2 (1 0 th C ir. Ju ly1 1 , 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. P axton, 422 F .3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). H o w e v e r, th e C o lo ra d o th ird d e g re e a ss a u lt s t atut e “doe s notnece s s ar i l yi ncl ude the us e ort hr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce” a s r e q u i r e d b y USS G § 2 L 1 .2 and, t her efor e, i t s appl i cat i on i s s ubj ectt o r evi ew u n d er Shepar d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 4 U . S . 1 3 (20 0 5 ). United S tates v. P erezVarga s, 4 1 4 F . 3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In th is case , C o rdo v a-A rev alo’s cr i m e i s anal y zed forthe purpos es of U SSG §2L 1. 2. N onethel es s , C or dovaA r eval o has notr ai s ed a c l ai m thathi s vi ol at i on of C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 3- 204 w as not“a c r i m e of vi ol ence . ” W e as s um e the abs ence of thi s ar gum entw as C o rd o v a -A re v a lo ’s d e lib e ra te d e c is io n d u e to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f h is o ffe n s e . T hough the PSR tr eat ed the C ol or ado convi ct i on as a cr i m e of vi ol ence , i tdi d not r efe rt o j udi ci al document s det ai l i ng the el ement s of the offens e of c onvi ct i on. C or dova- A r eval o’ s obj ect i ons t o the PSR di d notm ent i on thatdefi ci encybut i ns t ead c oncede d t he C ol or ado convi ct i on i s a fe l onyforpurpos es of the sent encing g uidel i nes. H e w ent on t o say : “A l tho ug h sai d calcul at i on of o ffen se l e v e l i s e x tr e m e l y u n fa i ra n d h a r s h fo rt h e d e fe n d a n t , t h e d e fi n i t i o n o f ‘ fe l o n y’ under2L 1. 2 does appea rt o be met . A ccor di ngl y , and unfortunat el y , t he gui del i ne o ffe n s e le v e l is 2 1 .” -3- P S R r e c o m m e n d a t i o n c o n t e n d i n g th e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s s h o u l d a p p l y, r egar dl es s of the s t at e cl as s i fi cat i on. T he gui del i nes tr eatthe pr i orconvi ct i on as a fe l ony , cal l i ng fora s ent ence under8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) w i th a maxi m um of tw entyy ear s i ncar cer at i on. A tthe D ece m ber8, 2004 s ent enci ng hear i ng C or dova- A r eval o al s o ar gued the pr opercl as s i fi cat i on of hi s C ol or ado convi ct i on (m is d e m e a n o r o r fe lo n y ) t u rn e d u p o n a fa c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n , i . e. , the seri ou sness of the act s upon w hi ch the C ol or ado convi ct i on w as bas ed. H e cont ends s uch 4 j u d i c i a l fa c tfi n d i n g i s p r o h i b i t e d b y B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ). Fi nal l y , he cl ai m s a s i xt een- l evel enhanc ementw as unr eas onabl e cons i der i ng t he re la tiv e ly b e n ig n a c ts o f m is c o n d u c t ( a s h e re g a rd s th e m ) i n th e C o lo ra d o c a s e .A ppar ent l ya r efe r ence t o A lm endar ez - Torr es v. Uni t ed Stat es , 52 3 U. S. 5 2 2 4 , 2 2 6 (19 9 8 ). 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt: 6 R eentr yof r emoved al i ens ( a) I n gener al S u bject t o su b sec ti o n (b) o f th is secti o n , an yali en w h o -- ( 1) has been de ni ed admi s s i on, excl uded, depor t ed, orr emoved or has depart ed the U ni t ed St at es w hi l e an or derof exc l us i on, deport at i on, orr emoval i s out s t andi ng, and ther eaf t er ( 2) ent er s , att empt s t o ent er , ori s atanyt i m e found i n, t he U ni t ed S ta te s , . . . . s hal l be fi ned underT i t l e 18, ori m pr i s oned notm or e than 2 y ear s , or both. ( b) C r i m i nal penal t i es forr eentryof ce r t ai n r emoved al i ens N otw i ths t andi ng s ubs ect i on ( a) of thi s s ect i on, i n the ca s e of a ny -4- T he di s tr i ctj udge r ej ect ed thos e ar gum ent s , appl i ed the gui del i ne def i ni t i on of fel onyand dec i ded B la ke ly di d notappl yt o “anyfac t s ori s s ues r el at ed t o a pr i or c o n v i c t i o n . ” ( S e n t e n c i n g T r . a t1 0 . ) C o r d o v a - A r e v a l o w a s s e n t e n c e d t o fi f ty- 5 seven m on ths i m pri sonm ent, the low end of the gu i deli ne rang e. T he co urtal so i s s ued an a l t ernat e s ent ence of fi fty - s even mont hs i n the eve ntt he gui del i nes w oul d be det erm i ned uncons t i tut i onal . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. A . D efi ni t i on O f Fel ony A t is s u e is th e d e fin itio n o f th e w o rd “ fe lo n y ” a s it is u s e d in 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (b ). W e re v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f a s ta tu te . 6ali en d esc ri b ed in su ch su b sec ti o n --

( 1) w hos e r emoval w as s ubs equentt o a convi ct i on forcomm i s s i on of

. . . a fe l ony( otherthan an a ggr avat ed fe l ony ) , s uch al i en s hal l be fin e d u n d e r T itle 1 8 , im p ri s o n e d n o t m o re th a n 1 0 y e a rs , o r b o th ; . . .

. ( 2) w hos e r emoval w as s ubs equentt o a convi ct i on forcomm i s s i on of

. . . an fe l ony( otherthan an a ggr avat ed fe l ony ) , s uch al i en s hal l be fin e d u n d e r T itle 1 8 , im p ri s o n e d n o t m o re th a n 1 0 y e a rs , o r b o th . . . . S u c h a fa c tb a s e d i n q u i r yi s fo rb i d d e n b yt h e c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h we 7 m u s t fo llo w w ith re s p e c t to p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . Sh epa rd , 5 4 4 U . S . at 26 (“[ T ]o d e ter m in e w h e th e r a p lea o f g u iltyto b u rg lar yd e fin e d b ya n o n g e n e ric sta tu te nece s s ar i l yadmi t t ed el ement s of the gene r i c offens e i s l i m i t ed t o the t erm s of the char gi ng document , the t erm s of a pl ea a gr eementort r ans cr i ptof col l oquy betw een j udge and de fenda nti n w hi ch the fa ctual bas i s fort he pl ea w as c o n firm e d b yth e d e fe n d a n t, or to so m e c o m p a ra b le ju d icia l re c o rd o f th is in fo rm a tio n .”); Tayl orv. Uni t ed Stat es , 495 U . S. 575, 602 ( 1990) . B utt hati s not t o s aythe puni s hm enti m pos ed, evi dentfr om t he j udgm entand s ent ence , and the r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n fr om i tcannotbe cons i der ed i n deci di ng i f a d e p a rtu re f

ro m th e g u id e lin e s is a p p ro p ria te o r, p o st- B ooker , an exe r ci s e of s e n te n c in g d is c re tio n is w a rr a n te d . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Truj i l l o- Ter r az as , 405 F . 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 9 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ T h e r e l a t i v e l y tr i v i a l n a tu r e o f M r . T ruj i l l o 's cr i m i nal hi s t oryi s atodds w i th the s ubs t ant i al 16- l evel enhanc ement rec o m m en d ed b ythe G u idelines fo r th is co n d u ct. ”). -5- Uni t e dS ta t e s v . Cl e men t e E. , 39 2 F . 3d 11 64 , 11 65 (10t h C i r. 20 04 ). D oing so al l ow s us t o qui ckl ydi s pos e of Cordova - A r eval o’ s “fa ctual di s put e” r egar di ng t he cl as s i fi cat i on of hi s offe ns e. H i s ar gum ents i m pl ym i s cas t s a l egal concl us i on as a fa ctual di s put e. T he pr i orconvi ct i on, w hi ch i s undi s put ed, i s the r el evant “fa ct , ” not the s peci fi c act s of m i s conduct gi vi ng r i s e t o that convi ct i on. T hat 7 br i ngs us t o t he i s s ue of s t atut orycons truct i on. T he governm entar gues U SSG §2L 1. 2, i ncl udi ng i t s i ncorpor at ed def i ni t i onW e re a c h e d th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n in a re c e n t u n p u b lis h e d d e c is io n , Uni t ed 8 S ta tes v . O rd o n ez-Na v a re tte , 1 5 4 F . A p p . 6 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). -6- of “fel ony , ” appl i es her e. C or dova- A r eval o conce des the gui del i nes defi ni t i on co n tr o ls i n d efining the term fe lon yu n d er U S S G § 2 L 1 . 2 fo r s ent ence calculat i on pur pos es . H ow ever , he cont ends the ca l cul at i on of hi s s ent ence underthe gui del i ne does notal t erthe s t atut orycap on hi s s ent ence i f the def i ni t i on of fel onyi n the s t atut e i s det erm i ned bys t at e cl as s i fi cat i ons . A ccor di ng t o C or dovaA r eval o, beca us e the t erm “fe l ony ” i n s ubs ect i on 1326( b) i s notdefi ned i n the sta tu te a n d c o u ld b e c o n stru e d b ye ith e r a sta te o r a fe d e ra l d e fin iti o n , the ter m is a m b ig u o u s . N o t s u rp ri s in g ly h e th in k s th e s ta te d e fin itio n s h o u ld c o n tr o l. H ow ever , w e nee d l ook onl yt o bas i c t enet s of s t atut or ycons truct i on t o concl ude the di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ydet erm i ned a “ fel ony ” under§ 1326( b) ( 1) i s “an offe ns e puni s habl e bya maxi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entof m or e than one y ear . ” See 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 1 5 6 (3). 8 Stat ut or y C ons tr uct i on T h e p u rp o se o f

o u r in q u iryis to d e ter m in e w h e th e r C o n g re ss in ten d e d to u s e “ fe lo n y ” to re fe r t o th e s ta te ’s c la s s ific a tio n o r t o a b ro a d fe d e ra l c o n c e p t. W hi l e the l anguage i n s ubs ect i on 1326( b) ( 1) pr ovi des l i t t l e di r ect i on, w e cons i der “the pl ai nnes s orambi gui tyof s t atut oryl anguage . . . byr efe r ence t o . . . t he s peci fi c cont exti n w hi ch thatl anguage i s us ed, and the br oadercont extof the s t atut e as a w hol e. ” S ie r r a C lu b v . E l P a s o G o ldMin e s , In c ., 421 F. 3d 1133,-7-

1142 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . W hen w e vi ew s ubs ect i on 1326( b) fr om thatper s pect i ve, th e te rm fe lo n yc a rr ie s b u t o n e m e a n in g . T o det erm i ne w hati s m eantby“fe l ony ” i n the s peci fi c cont extof s ubs ect i on 1326( b) ( 1) , w e l ook t o the comm on under s t andi ng and hi s t or i cal us e of th e wo r d . As d e fi n e d b yBl a c k ’ s La w Di c t i o n a ry , “ [ F ] e l o n y ” i s “ a s e r i o u s c r i me us u[al l y ] puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm entform or e than one y earorbydeath. ” Id . at 633 ( 7th E d. 1999) . Pr i ort o the Sent enci ng R eform A ctof 1984, 18 U . S. C . § 1 defi ned the t erm fel onyas “[a ] nyoffe ns e puni s habl e bydeath ori m pr i s onm entfor a t erm exce edi ng one y ear . ” C ongr es s r epea l ed 18 U . S. C . § 1 i n the pas s age of th e S e n t e n c i n g Re fo r m Ac to f 1 9 8 4 ( e ffe c t i v e No v e mb e r1 , 1 9 8 7 ) , b u ta tth e s a me tim e it im p lic itly re ta in e d a n id e n tic a l d e fin itio n o f fe lo n yw ith in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3559( a) . I n § 3559( a) , C ongr es s cl as s i fi ed offens es fors ent enci ng purpos es and i dent i fi ed di ffe r entgr ades of fe l oni es acc or di ng t o the maxi m um s ent ence appl i cabl e t o the offens e. 18 U . S. C . § 3559( a) ( 1) - ( 5) . T he cl as s es of fe l oni es run from an o ffen se pun i shable bya t erm of o ver one y ear i m pri sonm ent t o an offense p u n is h a b le b yd e a th . Id . T h e l e a s te g r e g i o u s fe l o n y o ffe n s e i s a c l a s s E fe l o n y – an o ffen se p u n isha b le bya term o f im p ri so n m en t of less than fiv e y ea rs bu t m o re than one y ear . 18 U . S. C . § 3559( a) ( 5) . T hus , C ongr es s has cl ear l ydefi ned a fel onybythe t erm s of the maxi m um puni s hm entattr i but abl e t o an offens e. C ons i der i ng t he t erm “fe l ony ” i n the cont extof the s t atut e as a w hol e, the C ongr es s i onal i nt enti s unm i s t akabl e. C ongr es s enac t ed the pena l tys ubs ect i onsT h e C o u rt d id n o t e x p re s s a v ie w a s to w h e th e r l a te r- a m e n d e d 8 U .S .C . § 9 1 3 2 6 (3 ) a n d (4 ) c re a te n e w o ffe n s e s o r a re m e re ly se n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n ts . A lm endar ez , 523 U . S. at237.

D ia z-B o n illa w a s b a se d o n th e d e fin iti o n o f “ fe lo n yo ffe n se ” fo u n d in 10 U SSG §4A 1. 2( o) w hi ch pr ovi des , “Fort he purpos es of §4A 1. 2( c) [Sent ence s C ount ed and Excl uded] , a “fel onyoffe ns e” means anyfede r al , s t at e orl ocal o ffen se p u n isha b le byd ea th o r a term o f im p ri so n m en t exc ee d ing o n e y ea r, r egar dl es s of the ac tual s ent ence i m pos ed. ” I n 1997, t he comm i s s i on added the d e fin itio n o f

“ fe lo n y ” to th e c o m m e n ta ry to U S S G § 2 L 1 .2 . See Ap p e n d i x C, A m e n d m e n t 5 6 2 (1 9 9 7 ). In 2 0 0 1 , the c o m m iss io n stru c k § 2 L 1 .2 a n d its a c c o m p a n y in g c o m m e n tar ya n d in se rte d a re p lac e m e n t g u id e lin e in a n e ffo rt to re sp o n d to c o n c e rn s th a t th e fo rm e r § 2 L 1 .2 so m e tim e s re su lted in d is p ro p o rt io n a te p e n a ltie s . See A p p e n d ix C , V o l. I I, A m e n d m e n t 6 3 2 (2 0 0 1 ). T h e a m e n d m e n t p ro v id e d a m o re g ra d u a te d s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. Id . T he -8- ( b) ( 1) and ( 2) of § 1326 t ogetheri n 1988 t o pr ovi de a s ent ence enhanc ementfor re c id iv is m . A lm endar ez - Torr es v. Uni t ed Stat es , 523 U . S. 224, 235 ( 1998) (“ [ W ]e b e liev e th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to se t fo rth a se n ten c in g fa c to r in s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 2) and not a s epar at e cr i m i nal offe ns e. ”) . A l ong w i th m anyother 9 ci r cui t s , w e have hel d t he t erm “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” i n s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 2) i s “an offe ns e [w hi ch] need notbe cl as s i fi ed [bya s t at e] as a fe l onyt o qual i fyas an

‘ aggr avat ed fe l ony ’ . ” United S tates v. Sa enz-Mend oza , 287 F. 3d 1011, 1014 (10t h C i r. 20 02 ). A bsent anycon traryi nd i cat i on , t here i s no reason C on gress w o u ld h a rb o r a d iffe re n t in ten t w h e n u sin g th e b ro a d e r te rm “ fe lo n y ” in su b sec ti o n (b)(1 ). Such cons truct i on fur ther s t he C ongr es s i onal ques tforuni form i tyi n fede r al s e n te n c in g . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . D ia z-B o n illa , 6 5 F . 3 d 8 7 5 , 8 7 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T h a t s a m e p u rp o s e o f th e S e n te n c in g R e fo rm A c t r e m a in s v ita l to d a y . 10amendm ental s o del et ed an appl i cat i on not e pr ovi di ng fordow nw ar d departur es

bas ed on the s er i ous nes s of the form eroffe ns e bec aus e the gr aduat ed e n h a n c e m e n t n e g a te d th e n e e d fo r t h e d e p a rt u re p ro v is io n . Id . I n 2003, the comm i s s i on’ s amendm ent s t o the comm ent aryi ncl uded movi ng the def i ni t i on of fe lo n yf ro m n o te 1 to n o te 2 . See A p p en d ix C , V o l. II, A m en d m en t 65 8 (20 0 3 ). -9- See Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 5 2 (2 0 0 5 ) (“ C o n g re ss ’ b a sic g o a l in pas s i ng the Sent enci ng A ctw as t o m ove the s ent enci ng s y s t em i n the di r ect i on of i ncr eas ed uni form i ty . ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . Shoul d the meani ng of the w o rd “ fe lo n y ” d e fa u lt t o sta te d e fin iti o n s, th is p u rp o se w o u ld b e se v e re ly underm i ned. G i ven C ongr es s ’ w el l - document ed and r ecogni zed que s tfor u n ifo rm ityin se n ten c in g , itis c e rta in th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d th e ter m “ fe lo n y ” in 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) t o carr yi t s fede r al connot at i on cons i s t entw i th the s ent enci ng gui del i nes and hi s t or i cal fede r al us age. C o rd o v a -A re v a lo a rg u e s th e sta te d e fin iti o n is a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se sta te court s ar e much m or e fa m i l i arw i th s t at e offens es . H e al s o s tr es s es thatthe C ol or ado s ent enci ng courti m pos ed onl yt en day s i ncar cer at i on and compl ai ns t hat the i ndi r ectcons equenc e of hi s C ol or ado mi s demeanorconvi ct i on m or e than q u a d ru p le d h is s e n te n c in g in th is c a s e . T h e a rg u m e n t m is d ir e c ts o u r a tte n tio n . C ert ai nl y , s t at e court s ar e more fami l i arw i th s t at e s t atut es and offens es . B utthat fac ti s i m m at er i al t o thi s i s s ue. T he s ent ence i m pos ed her e i s fora vi ol at i on of fede r al l aw . H ow pr i orconvi ct i ons aggr avat e a feder al s ent ence i s l i kew i s e a m att erof fe der al l aw and pol i cy . A s a r es ul t , w e have no tr oubl e conc l udi ng the defi ni t i on of the t erm “fe l ony ” i m por t ed i nt o 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) thr ough 18B ookera p p lie s to a ll c a s e s o n d ir e c t r e v ie w . Id . a t 2 6 8 . W e a p p lyb o th 11 B la ke ly and B ookerto th is a p p e a l. S e e Un ite dS ta te s v . C lifto n , 406 F. 3d 1173, 1175 n. 1 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( “W e mustappl yt he hol di ngs i n B la ke ly and B ookerto a ll c a s e s in w h ic h a d e fe n d a n t p ro p e rl yra is e d a n is s u e u n d e r e ith e r c a s e .” ). -10- U .S .C . § 3 5 5 9 (a ) a n d in c o rp o ra ted in to U S S G § 2 L 1 .2 c o m m e n tar yn o te 2 is c o n sis ten t w ith a n a rticu late d fe d e ra l sc h e m e a n d p u rp o se a n d is a p p lica b le d e s p ite a s ta te ’s c o n tr a ry c la s s ific a tio n o f a n o ffe n s e . B lakel y/ B ooker W e no w turn t o C ordov a-A reval o’s B la ke ly ar gum ent . A ft erC or dovaA r eval o’ s s ent enci ng, the Supr eme C our tdeci ded B ooker , 5 3 4 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). I n B ooker , the Supr eme C our text ended i t s hol di ng i n B la ke ly t o the fe der al s ent enci ng gui del i nes , hol di ng t he Si xth A m endmentr equi r es “[a ] nyfac t( other than a pr i orconvi ct i on) w hi ch i s nece s s aryt o s uppor ta s ent ence exce edi ng the m axi m um author i zed bythe fa ct s es t abl i s hed bya pl ea of gui l tyora j ur yver di ct [t o] be admi t t ed bythe defendantorpr oved t o a j urybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” 5 3 4 U .S . a t 2 4 4 . T o re m e d yth e c o n s titu tio n a l in fir m ity o f th e g u id e lin e s , B ooker in v a lid a ted th e ir m a n d a to ryn a tu re , req u irin g th e d istric t co u rt to c o n su lt th e m in an advi s or y fas hi on. Id. at245- 46 ( s ever i ng and exc i s i ng 18 U . S. C . §§ 11 3 5 5 3 (b)(1 ), 3 7 4 2 (e)). U n d er B oo ker, a d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o u l d p o t e n t i a l l yma k e t wo d istin c t typ e s o f

e rro r: Fi r s t , a courtcoul d err b y r el y i ng upon j udge- found fa ct s , other than thos e of pr i orconvi ct i ons , t o enhanc e a de fenda nt ' s s ent ence m and at ori l y . A s B ookerm akes cl ear , t he Si xth A m endme nt p roh ib its th is prac ti ce . . . . S ec o n d , a se n tenc ing co u rtco u ld err-11-

b ya p p ly in g th e G u id e lin e s in a m a n d a to ry fa sh io n , as o p p o se d to a di s cr et i onaryfashion , even though the r es ul t i ng s ent ence w as c a lcu late d so lelyu p o n fa c ts th a t w e re a d m itt e d b yth e d e fe n d a n t, found byt he j ury , orbas ed upon the fa ct o f a p ri o r convi ct i on. W h ile th is typ e o f se n te n c e d o e s n o t v io late th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t, su c h a se n ten c e is n o n e th e les s im p e r m is sib le b ec au se th e C o u rt sev ere d the p o rt ion o f th e S en tenc ing R efo rm A ctthat r equ i red the m and at oryapp l i cat i on of the G uidel i nes. Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al ez - Huer ta, 403 F. 3d 727, 731- 32 ( 10th C i r . ) ( i nt ernal c ita tio n s o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. (2 0 0 5 ). B e c a u se C o rd o v a -A re v a lo p re s e rv e d th is is s u e , w e re v ie w fo r h a rm le s s e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. Labast i daSeg ura , 3 9 6 F .3 d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). C or dova- A r eval o cont ends t hat , gi ven the fa ct s of hi s C ol or ado offens e, t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s m andat oryappl i cat i on of the gui del i nes r es ul t ed i n an u n re a so n a b lyh a rsh se n ten c e . T h u s, C o rd o v a -A re v a lo c laim s h is s e n ten c e is unr eas onabl e. C or dova- A r eval o as s ert s hi s cas e i s s i m i l art o Uni t ed Stat es v. Truj i l l oTer r az as , 405 F. 3d 814 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T her e, t he di s tr i ctcourti m pos ed a s ent ence of forty - one mont hs pur s uantt o U SSG §2L 1. 2( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) bas ed upon a sta te c o n v ictio n fo r th ird -d e g re e a rso n . T h e d e fe n d a n t h a d th ro w n a litm a tch in to a c a r a n d re c e iv e d a s e n te n c e o f a $ 3 5 .0 0 re s titu tio n p a ym e n t. Id . a t8 1 7 . We det erm i ned the s ent ence w as pl ai n err orand r emanded forr e- s ent enci ng, i n l ar ge part , beca us e the di s tr i ctcourtcl ear l yexpr es s ed di s comfortatt he har s hnes s of th e m a n d a to ry se n te n c e . Id . a t 8 2 0 . Ho we v e r , Co r d o v a - Ar e v a l o ’ s c a s e i s r e a d i l yd i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m Truj i l l o--12-

Ter r az as . R athert han expr es s i ng hes i t ancyorconce rn r egar di ng the l ength of C or dova- A r eval o’ s s ent ence the di s tr i ctcour tw entoutof i t s w ayt o embra ce the g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e . T h u s, th e n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r h e re is m o re sim ilar to thatcons i der ed i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Ser r ano- D om i nguez , 406 F. 3d 1221, 1224 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . I n Ser r ano , the di s tr i ctcourti s s ued an i dent i cal al t ernat i ve s e n t e n c e i n th e e v e n tth e g u i d e l i n e s w e r e fo u n d t o b e u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l . We con cl ud ed the no nco nst i tuti on al err or cl ai m ed b yS err ano t o b e harm l ess because

“ [ t]h e d istric t co u rt' s s tate m e n t elim in a tes a n yn e e d to sp e c u late a b o u t w h a t it w oul d do on r emand. ” Id . T he s i tuat i on her e i s s i m i l ar . A tC or dova- A r eval o’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he di s tr i ctcourtal s o i s s ued an a l t ernat i ve s ent ence of fi fty - s even mont hs , s t at i ng: [A ] ft ert aki ng i nt o acc ountal l of the ar gum ent s m ade bycouns el , as w e ll as re v iew in g th e b rie fs a n d re v iew in g th e P re se n ten c e R e p o rt – a n d I h a v e re v iew e d th o se tw ice , sin c e w e h a v e p re p a re d fo r th is hear i ng a coupl e of t i m es t o r eal l ypr epar e fort he obj ect i on – t he C o u rt w ill a lso im p o se a n a ltern a tiv e se n ten c e o f 5 7 m o n th s, w ith a ll othercondi t i ons bei ng the s ame. (R . V o l. III a t 1 5 .) A s th is s tate m e n t il lu stra tes , a re m a n d w o u ld b e f u til e . It i s clea r th e d istri ct co u rtw o u ld im p o se th e sa m e se n tenc e u n d er a n ad v isory g u id e lin e re g im e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Thomps on , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 6 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( re m a n d w o u ld b e f u tile in lig h t o f

id e n tic a l a lte rn a tiv e s e n te n c e ). M o r e o v e r , Co r d o v a - Ar e v a l o ’ s s e n t e n c e i s wi th i n t h e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e . An exer ci s e of di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng a pr oper l ycomput ed s ent ence undert he-13-

gui del i nes i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e, a pr es um pt i on C or dova- A r eval o has fa ile d to re b u t. S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1055 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “I f . . . the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ycons i der s the r el evantG ui del i nes r ange a nd 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 p re su m p tiv e ly rea so n ab le. ”). A s a re su lt , an yerro r i n the d istri ct co u rt ’s us e o f m an d atory gu i deli nes w as harm l ess. AF F I RMED .