### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40498
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. G E R M A N A N D IN O -O R T E G A , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

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
B ef ore B A R K S D A L E , G A R Z A , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. E M ILIO M
. G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg e: Appel l an tG erm an A n di n o- O rt ega ap pea l s hi s 60- m on t h se nt e nc e . Fo rt he
r e a s o n s s e tf

o r t h h e r e i n , we VAC AT E An d i n o - Or t e g a ’ s s e n t e n c e a n d R EMAND f orr es ent enc i ng. I A n d in o -O r te g a p le a d e d g u ilty t o o n e c o u n t o f b e in gu n la w fu llyp r e s e n t in t h e U n i t ed S t ates f

ol l ow i n g dep ort ati on , i n vi ol ati on of 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1326
. U n der th e G u i d eli n es a p p l i ca b l e to th i s ca se, th e p rese n ten ce re p ort ( “P S R ”)
r e c o m m e n d e d a b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l o f e i g h t
. S ee U
. S. S. G
. § 2 L1. 2( a)
. The PSR al so r ecom m en ded a 16-l evelenh an cem en tpu rsuan t t o § 2L 1. 2(b) ( 1) (A) (i i) , af t er c o nc l udi ng t hatAndi no - O r t e ga ’ s pri orTe xa s c o nvi c t i o n f o ri nj ur y t o a c hi l d,
u n der T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 2 2
. 0 4 ( a ) , q u a l i f i e d a s a c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e . The United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 8, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2010N o. 09- 40498

2 P S R i n cl u ded at w o - l e ve lr e duc t i o n f or acc eptan ce of

res pon sibi l i t y, bu ti n di cat ed t h at t h e G overnm en tdi d n otpl an t o pu rsue an add i t i on alone-p o in t redu ct i on purs uant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 3E 1. 1(b)
. A ndi no- O r t ega’ s r es ul t i ng of fens e l eve lof

22, c om bi ned w i t h a c r i m i nalhi st or y c at ego r y o f I I I , r es ul t ed i n a G ui del i nes r ange of 51

– 6 3 m on th s i m p ri son m en t. Andi no - O r t e ga r equ est ed a d o w nw ar d v ar i anc e o n t he b as i s t hathe ori gi n al l y bel i eved t h at hi s pri or c on vi ct i on w ou l d resul ti n a f ou r- l evel
en h an cem en tun der case l aw f i n di n g t h at i nj u ry t o a chi l d by om i ssi on does not consti t u t e a cr i m e of vi ol en ce. H ow ever, A n di n o- O rt ega adm i t t ed t h at hi s pri or c o nvi c t i o n was f

o r“ i nt e nt i o nal l y andkno w i ngl y c aus i ng bo di l y i nj ur y t o [ a c hi l d] bys t r i ki ng he rw i t h a w e e de at e r , ” w hi c h i s no ta n i nj ur y c aus e d b y o m i s s i o n. T h e G overnm en trequ est ed a w i t h i n - G u i del i n es sen t en ce, n ot i n g t h at A n di n oO r te g a h a d a h is to r yo f fa m ilyv io le n c e a n d r e tu r n e d t o t h e U n ite d S ta te s s h o r tly af t e rhi s pr i o rde po r t at i o n. Andi no - O r t e ga a l s o a r gue d t hathe w as e nt i t l e d t o an addi t i o nalo ne - po i nt redu ct ion u n d e r § 3E 1. 1(b) si m pl y f or enter i n g a ti m el y gu i l t y pl ea. H ow ever, th e G o v e r n m e n t r e fu s e d to m o v e fo rth e re d u c tio n b e c a u s e A n d in o -O r te g a w o u ld
n otw ai ve h i s app el l ate r i gh t s. A tsenten ci n g, t h e di st ri ctcourtoverrul ed A n di n o- O rt ega’ s obj ect i on , f i n di n g t h at t h e G overnm en th a d a u t h ori t y u n der t hi s c i r c ui t ’ s pr e c e de ntt o r e f us e t o m o ve f

o rt he a ddi t i o nalreducti on. The di st ri ctcourtdecl i n ed to gran ta dow n w ard va ri an ce. T h e di st ri ctcourtconsi dered al l t h e argu m en t s of coun sel an d concl u ded t h at a w i t h i n - G u i del i n es s en t en ce w ou l d sati sf y t h e § 355 3( a) fact ors. Th e court se nt enc ed An di no- O r t ega t o 6 0 m ont hs i n pri so n, t o be f ol l ow ed by a t hre e- year t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease. II A tt h e outset , w e m u stadd ress t h e G overnm en t ’ s argum en tt h at A n di n oO rt ega w ai ved t h e ri gh tt o ap pea l h i s sentence becau se h e speci f i cal l y ad dressed t he 16- l eve lenhance m entunder § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1 )(A ) (i i) and c onc ede d t hati tw as Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2010N o. 09- 40498

3 pr o pe rund e rhi s unde r s t and i ng o f t he ca s e l aw. I n pa r t i c ul ar , t he G o ve r nm e nt p o in ts to th e fo llo w in gs ta te m e n ts b yd e fe n s e co u n s e l: T h e predi cat e of

fen se i n t h is ca se w a s inj u ry t o a chi l d.
. . . Th ere i s c a s e l a w t h a ts a y s t h a ti nj u r yt o a c h i l d b yo mi s s i o n i s n o t a c r i me of viol en ce a n d w ou l d on l y g a rn er a 4-l ev el en h a n cem en t. H ow eve r , th er e i s c as e l aw — [ p] ar t i c ul ar l y, I ’ m l oo ki ng her e a t Pere z- Mu n oz v. K

ei sler , 5 07 F. 3d3 57 [ 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7] , w hi c h f i nds th a t i f th ere — th e inju ryto a ch i l d stem s f rom an in ten ti on a lact, t h e n i td e fi n it e ly i s a c r im e o f v io le n c e . Y o u rH o n o r , . . . m yc li e n t ’s pos i t i on t hro ughout has bee n t hat[ t he i nj ury] w as t he r es ul t of an a cciden t. N o w , t he fac tr e m ai ns t hat he pl e d t o t he o f fe ns e as c har ge d i n t he in d ic tm e n t w h ic h ch a r g e d a n in te n tio n a l o ffe n s e . . . . B ased on t h i s c ol l oqu y, t h e G overnm en t contend s t h at A n di n o- O rt ega “kn ew of th e s e n te n c in gg u id e lin e s is s u e a n d th a t h e co n s c io u s l y c h o s e to fo r e g o it.” A n di n o- O rt ega con t en ds t h at t h e st atem en t s, i n fact , show t h at defen se c ou n sel
m i s unde r s t o o d Pere z- Mu n ozand fai l ed t o a c c ountf orpr ec ede nt i ndi c at i ng t hat th e T e x a s o ffe n s e o f inju r yto a ch ild is n o t a “c r im e o f v io le n c e .” W a iv e ris th e in te n tio n a l re lin q u is h m e n t o f a k n o w n rig h t. Un i t ed S t ate s v . O l ano , 507 U
. S. 725, 733 ( 1993)
. A w ai ver“ oc c urs by an af f i r m at i ve c hoi c e b y t h e defen da n tt o f

orego an y rem edy avail able t o hi m , presum ably f or r ealor p erce i ve d be n efi ts resu l ti n g from the w a i ve r. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. D od son , 288 F
. 3d 1 5 3 , 1 6 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). In co n tr a s t, fo r fe itu r e is th e fa ilu r e to m a k e th e tim e ly
a s s e r tio n o f a rig h t. O l ano , 507 U
. S. at733. W e h a v e fo u n d o n ly o n e c a s e in th is c ir c u it th a ts u g g e s t s th a tc o u n s e l’s
s ta te m e n t s , h e r e , m ig h t c o n s tit u te a w a iv e r . See Uni t e d S t at e s v. F ernan d ez- C u sco , 4 47 F. 3d3 82, 3 84 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6)
. I n F ernan d ez- C u sco , t he
cou rt su a sponte c o ns i de r e d whet he rt he de fe nda ntw aive d hi s a ppe alo f t he appl i c at i on o f

a 16

- l eve lenhance m entf orhi s pri orc onvi c t i on o n t he bas i s t hat th e prior crim e w a s n ot a “cri m e of violen ce.” I d. Th e co urtac know l edge d t hat Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2010N o. 09- 40498

4 a “de fen d a n t do es n ot w a i ve plain -error r e view si m p l y b y ‘ fai l [i n g] to ob j ect to th e ch a ra cterization of h i s p ri or offen se a s a crim e of viol en ce.’” Id
. ( quo t i ng Uni t e d St at es v. A lf

aro , 4 0 8 F .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 7 n .1 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 5 46 U
. S. 911 ( 200 5) ) ( al t erat i on i n ori gi n al)
. B u ti tf ou n d that t h e defen da n t“ di d m ore t han fai lt o o bj e c t
. . . ; he a f f i r m at i ve l y r e c o gni z e d [t he e nhan c e m e nt ] w as b e i ng a p p l i ed an d i n d i ca ted i t w a s p rop er.” I d. Th e courtconcl u d ed that t h ese st atem en t s di d n otri se to the l evelof w ai ver, b u t“ argu ably” const i t u t ed i n vi t ed
e r r o r . In a n a b u n d a n c e o f c a u tio n , th e co u r t n o n e th e le s s re v ie w e d fo rp la in
e r r o r . I d. A lt h o u g h w e r e c o g n iz e th e fa c t u a l s im il a r it yh e r e — A n d in o -O r t e g a ’s
coun selackn ow l edg ed t h at t h e 16-l evel en h an cem en t w as proper— h e di d s o on th e b a sis of a m i su n d ersta n d i n g o f th i s cou rt’ s p rece d en t. T h e sta tem en ts reg a rd i n g th e p rop ri etyof th e crim e-of- violen ce en h a n cem en t do n ot con sti tu te a w aive rb e c aus e t he y do no te vi de n ce a n i nt e nt i o nala nd kno w i ng rel i n qu i shm en tof

a ri gh t
. C ou n sel ’ s fai l u re t o obj ectbel ow becau se he di d n ot
r e c o g n iz e th e a r g u m e n t n o w b e in gm a d e o n a p p e a l is n o t a w a iv e r . S ee Un i t ed St at e s v . Cas t ane da- Bal t az ar , 239 F. A pp’ x 900, 901 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (u n p u b lis h e d ); se e a lso Un itedS ta tes v. A rv iso -Ma ta , 442 F
. 3d 382 , 384 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) (f i n di n g n o w ai ver of

sentenci n g gu i del i n es i ssue even t h ou gh defen se coun selst ated t h at “ ot h er t h an t h e B l ak el y ob j ection , h e h a d n o p rob l em w i th t h e P S R ” )
. A ccor di n gl y, w e revi ew f or pl ai n err or. III Fol l ow i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U. S
. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , t h i s c o u r tr e v i e ws se n t e n c e s fo r r e a so n a b len e ss in li g h t of th e fac to rs in 1 8 U .S .C
. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 402 F
. 3d 5 11, 5 19– 20 ( 5th C i r. 2 005 )
. Pu rsuan tt o G a ll
v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 52 U
. S
. 3 8, 5 1 ( 20 07 ) , t he c o ur tde t e r m i ne s w he t he rt he
s e n te n c e is p r o c e d u r a llys o u n d a n d w h e th e r it is su b s ta n tiv e lyre a s o n a b le
. T h is court re v iew s a dis t ri ctcourt ’ s i n t erpret ati on of t h e gu i del i n es d e novo a n d i ts fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo rcle a re r r o r . Un i ted S t ate s v. C i sneros- G u t i err ez , 517 F. 3d Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/08/2010N o. 09- 40498

5 751 , 764 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)
. B ecau se A n di n o- O rt ega di d not obj ectbel ow , he m u st est a b li sh th at t h e di st ri ctcourtpl ai n l y erred i n app l yi n g t h e gu i del i n es. A rv iso -Ma ta , 442 F. 3d at384. U n d er pl ai n er r or , t he appel l antm usts how an e r r o r , th a t is cle a ro ro b v io u s , a n d th a t a ffe c te d 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 (2 0 0 9 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Vi l l ega s , 404 F. 3d 355, 358 ( 5t h C i r . 2005)
. I f t hes e r equi r em ent s ar e m et , t hi s c our tm ay r e m e d yth e e r r o r i f i t “ s e r io u s lya ffe c t[s ] th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity o rp u b lic rep u tati on of ju d i ci a lpr oce ed i n gs . ” P u ck ett , 129 S. C t
. at 142 9 ( qu ot ati on o m itted ) ( a lter a tion in or igin a l). A T h e G u i del i n es provi de f or a 16- l eveli n crease i n a defen da n t ’ s b as e o f f e n se l eveli f he w as previ ou sl y dep ort ed af t er being convic t ed of a cri m e of

vi ol en ce. U .S .S .G
. § 2 L 1 .2(b )(1)(A )(i i). A“cr im e of v iole n ce ” is d e fin e d a s e ith e r o n e of a l i stof enu m er at ed c r i m es or“ any ot herof fens e underfede r al , s t at e, orl oc all aw th a t h a s a s a n elem en t t he use , at t em pt ed us e, ort hre at ened us e o f physi c al fo r c e a g a in s t t h e p e r s o n o f a n o th e r .” § 2 L 1 .2 , co m m e n t. (n .1 (B )(iii)) (e m p h a s is
a d d e d ). T h e cr im e o f “inju r yto a ch ild ,” fo rw h ic h A n d in o -O r te g a w a s p r e v io u s ly convic t ed, i s not on e of the enu m erat ed cri m es. Th u s, t o qu al i f y f or t h e 16-l evel
en h an cem en t , t h e st atute of convi ct i on m u st h a ve “ as an el em en tt h e use, at t em pt ed use, or t hre at ened use of ph ys i c alfor c e. ” T exas PenalC ode § 22. 04( a) pro vi des t hat: “A pers on c om m i t s an of fens e i f he i nt ent i onal l y, know i ngl y, reckl essl y, or w i th c rim inal n egl i gen ce, by act or i n t en t i on al l y, kn ow i n gl y, or r ec kl es sl y by om i ss i on, c ause s t o a c hi l d
. . . se r i ous bodi l y i nj ury; s er i ous m ent al d e fic ie n c y , im p a ir m e n t, o rinju r y ; o rb o d ilyinju r y .” I n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he ra n o f fe ns e i s a c r i m e o f vi o l e nc e , t hi s c o ur t“ l o o ks t o t he e l e m e nt s of

t he cr i m e , nott o t he def e nda nt ’ s ac t ualco nduc ti n c o m m i t t i ng i t. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Cal de r o n- Pe na , 3 8 3 F .3d 2 5 4 , 2 5 7 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c). Th e e l em ent s c om e f r om t he s t at ut e o f

c onvi c t i on, notf

r om t he “ par t i c ul ar m a n n er a n d m ea n s th a t a tten d a g i ve n v i olati on o f th e sta tu te. ” Id
. H ow ever, Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/08/2010N o. 09- 40498

Althou ghth e actual c onduct de scribe d involved th e u se of physicalforc e, th at is 1 irrel evant for the purpose s of this case. Th e inquiry is wheth er the use of phy sical force is an eleme nt under the statut e of conviction , not whetherth e defendant’s actu al conduct involved th e u seof phy sical forc e. See, e.g. , Calderon -Pena , 38 3 F .3d at 2 57. 6 w h ere, as here, a st atute l i st s al t erna t i ve m et h ods of com m i t t i n g a cri m e, a court
m ay l ook to c h argi n g pa pers t o see w h i ch of t h e vari ou s s t atutor y al t erna t i ves w e r e in v o lv e d in a p a r tic u la rca s e . Id
. a t 2 5 8 ; seealso Perez

- Mu n oz , 507 F. 3d at 362 (hol di ng t h a t T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 2 2. 04( a) m ay be “ par ed do w n” by ref erence t o chargi n g docu m en t s because a defend an tcan be convic t ed ei t h er f or a n i n ten ti on a lact or an om i ssion ). N otw i th stan d i n g A n d i n o-O rteg a ’ s p rotes ts t h at h e “acci den t al l y” cau sed i nj u ry to a chi l d, itis cl ear tha th e w as convi ct ed of c ausi ng i nj ury by an ac t , r at hert han an om i ss i on. Sp e c i f i c al l y, A ndi no- O r t ega pl ead ed gu i l t y t o t h e charge that h e “di d .
. . i n t en t i on al l y an d k n ow i n gl y cau se bo di l y i nj ur y t o . . . a c hi l d yo ung e r t han 15 ye ar s o f a ge , b y s t r i ki ng he rw i t h a
w e e d e a te r .” 1 T h e qu estion i s w h eth er a con victi on for ca u sing i nj u ryto a ch i l d by an act, ra th e r th a n om iss ion , co n stitu te s a “crim e o f v iole n ce ” for p u rp o se s of § 2 L 1 .2(b ). Andi no - O r t e ga a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ti nc o r r e c t l y r e l i e d o n Pere z- Mu n oz i n appl yi ng t he s ent enc i ng enhance m ent , w hi l e t he G ove r nm en tar gues t hat Pere z- Mu n oz i s o n po i nta nd c o nt r o l l i ng. I n Pere z- Mu n oz , t he c our tf ound t hat i f t he c hargi ng doc um ent s dem ons t r at ed t hat t he of fens e w as c om m i t t ed byan i nt ent i onalac tr at hert han by om i ss i on, t he “ i nj u ry t o a c hi l d” of fens e m ay qua l i f y as a “ c r i m e o f

v i o l e nc e . ” 5 07 F. 3da t3 62
. Al t ho ugh Pere z- Mu n oz d e a ls
w i t h t he under l yi ng s t at ut e o f c o nv i c t i on ati ss ue her e, i ti nt er pre t s w het hert hat of fen se i s a “ cri m e of

vi ol en ce” un der 18 U
. S
. C
. § 16(b) , w h i ch defi n es “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” di f

ferentl y t h an § 2L 1. 2(b)
. U n der § 16(b) , an of fen se t h at i n vol ves a

“ sub st an t i alri sk that phy si calf orce aga i n stt h e pe rs o n o r p ropert y of an ot h er m ay be u sed” consti t u t es a c ri m e of vi ol en ce, w h i l e un der § 2L 1. 2, t h e of fen se m ust“ [ have] as an el em entt he use , at t em pt ed us e, ort hre at ened us e o f physi c al Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/08/2010N o. 09- 40498

The offen se of child e ndan germent, under T EX . P ENAL C O D E ANN . § 22.0 41 (c), is 2 slightlydifferentth an inj uryto a chil d, un der § 2 2.04 (a). Under§ 22.0 41(c), a personcommit s the offen se of child endan germent if he “int entionally , k nowin gly, reckle ssly, or with crimin al negligence , byact oromi ssion, engages in conduct that plac es a child . . . inimminent danger of de ath , bo dilyin

jury, or p hy s ic alor mental i mpairment.” Th e court characteriz ed th e differe nce thu s: Th e “salie nt differe nce betwee n § 2 2.04 (a) and § 2 2.04 1(c) is th at in the latt er, the perpetr atorplaces achild ‘inimminent danger’ of inj ury , death, etc., wh erea s in§ 22.0 4(a) the conduct actuallyresults in the inj ury , death, etc., of th e child.” Calderon -Pena , 33 9 F .3d 7 fo r c e .” B e c a u s e o f t h e d i ffe r e n c e in th e d e fin itio n o f “c r im e o f v io le n c e ,” Pere z- Mu n oz i s c l ear l y notc ont r ol l i ng. In stea d , A n d i n o-O rteg a con ten d s th a t Un itedS ta tes v. G ra cia -Ca n tu , 302 F .3d 3 0 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ), i s c on t rol l i n g becau se i n t h at c ase, t h e def i n i t i on of

“ cri m e of vi ol en ce” m atc h es the defi n i t i on a ti ssue h ere. Th e courtdeter m i n ed t h at “i nj u ry to a c h i l d” un der T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 2 2
. 0 4 ( a ) w a s n o t a c r i me of vi ol enc e under18 U
. S. C
. § 16( a) , w hi c h pro vi des a s ubst ant i al l y s i m i l ar d e fin itio n to t h a t s e t fo r th in U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2
. I d. at 311 –12
. Th e court accepted t h e argu m en tt h at “ i nj u ry t o a chi l d” di d n otconst i t u t e a cr i m e of vi ol en ce because § 22. 04(a) does not r equ i re t h at t h e perpetrat o r a ct u al l y u se, a tt e m p t to u s e , o rth r e a te n to u s e p h y s ic a l fo r c e . Id
. at 31 1. H ow ever, t h e court so h el d becau se i tcou l d n otd et erm i n e w h et h er t h e “ i nj u ry t o a chi l d” oc curred by ac torom i ss i on. B ec ause suc h i nj ury c oul d oc c ur by om i ss i on, t he of fens e w as “n ot, ‘b y it s n a tu re,’a crim e of viol en c e .” Id
. at313 ( c i t i ng Uni t e d S t at e s v. Velaz que z- O vera , 1 0 0 F. 3d 418, 420–21 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) )
. H er e, i ti s c l eart hat A ndi no- O r t ega w as c onvi cted o f c ausi ng i nj ury by an i nt ent i onalac t , notan o m is s io n . T h u s , G ra cia -Ca n tu i s not di sposi t i ve. Al t ho ugh t he pa r t i e s l ar ge l y i gno r e d t hi s c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Un i t ed S t ate s v . Cal de r o n- Pe na , 3 8 3 F .3 d 25 4 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 4 ) (en ba n c), i t i s d i sp ositive . In t h at case, a pa ne lo f t hi s c o ur tf

o und t hatt he o f

fe ns e o f c hi l d e nda nge r m e nt
u n der T EX . P ENAL C ODE . A NN . § 22. 041 ( c) const i t u t ed a cri m e of vi ol en ce f

or p u r p o s e s o f a p p ly in gt h e s e n te n c in ge n h a n c e m e n t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2
. S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. Cal de r o n- Pe na , 339 F
. 3d 320 , 329 ( 5th C i r. 200 3)
. Th e e n b anc 2 Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/08/2010N o. 09- 40498

at 327
. 8 court reversed. I tf

ou n d that al t h ou gh C al deron

- P en a h ad previ ou sl y com m i t t ed th e o ffe n s e o f “k n o w in g ly
. . . b y a c t .
. . e n g a g [in g ] in c o n d u c t th a t p la c e s a ch ild you n ger t h an 15 yea rs i n im m i n en td an ger of
. . . bodil y i nj u ry, ” t h e “st atute does
no tha ve t he us e , a t t e m pt e d us e , o rt hr e at e ne d us e of phys i c alfo r c e a ga i ns tt he victi m ’ s p erso n as a r e q u i red elem en t. ” Cal de r o n- Pe na , 383 F. 3d at260 (a lter a tion in or igin a l). T h is co u r t p r e v io u s lyd e c id e d th a t t h e p h r a s e “h a s a s a n e le m e n t” in § 2 L 1 .2 m e a n s th a t “th e in te n tion a l u se of for ce m u st b e a co n stitu e n t p a rt o f a
c l ai m t hat m ust be pro ved f or t he c l ai m t o suc c ee d. ” Un it ed S t at e s v. Varga s - D ur an , 356 F
. 3d 598 , 605 ( 5th C i r. 200 4) ( en ban c) (in t erna lqu ot ati on m arks om i t t ed). “ If

an y set of fact s w ou l d s u pp orta convi ct i on w i t h ou tproof of th a t c o m p o n e n t, th e n t h e co m p o n e n t m o s t d e c id e d lyis n o t a n e le m e n t— im p lic it
or ex p l i ci t— of t h e crim e.” Id
. Fori nst ance , an of fense un der§ 22. 04 c an be
com m i t t ed by i n t en t i on alactw i t h ou tthe u se of p h ysi calfor ce by pu t t i n g poi son o r a n o th e r h a r m fu l s u b s ta n c e in a ch ild ’ s fo o d o rd r in k
. S ee Pere z- Mu n oz , 507 F. 3d at362. Becaus e t he of fens e o f i nj ury t o a c hi l d, ev en w her e c om m i t t ed by
an i n t en t i on alact , does n otrequi re t h e use or at t em pted u se of ph ysi calf

orce, t h e of fen se does not m eett h e def in it i on of

a “ cri m e of

vi ol en ce” necessary f or im p o s itio n o f th e 1 6 -le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 (b )(1 )(A )(ii). T h is
c o nc l us i o n f

o l l o w s c l e ar l y f

rom the c o ur t ’ s a nal ys i s i n Cal de r o n- Pe na and Varga s - D ur an , an d accordi n gl y, t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s er ror w as cl ear or obvious. T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s er ror i n app l yi n g t h e 16-l evel enh an cem en taf fect ed Andi no - O r t e ga ’ s s ubs t ant i alri gh t s . As a r e s ul to f t he e nhan c e m e nt , t he
se nt enc i ng r ange w as 51 t o 6 3 m ont hs. A ndi no- O r t ega r ec eived a s ent enc e o f 60
m ont hs’i m pri so nm ent
. I f, as A ndi no- O r t ega c ont ends, he i s subj ec t t o o nl y a 4- l eve le nh ance m entpurs uant t o § 2L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( D ) , t he appl i c abl e G ui del i nes r ange Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/08/2010N o. 09- 40498

Wele ave to the district court on reman d to properly calculate the guideline s ran ge . 3 We note , however , th at An dino -Ortegacan be subj ect to an 8-l ev elenhancement under § 2 L1 .2(b)(1 )(C), only if h is p rio rconvictionfor inj uryto a chil d qu alifies as an “aggravated felo ny ,”a s def

inedb y8U .S .C
. § 1 1 0 1 (a)( 4 3) an d 1 8 U .S .C. § 1 6 (b). See U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2, co mme nt. (n .3 (A

))
. Wefin d th e Governme nt’s argument th at the district court imposed an alternate non- 4 Guideline ss e nt e nc ewholly unpers u a sive. Th e Govern me nt urgesth at anye rrorwa s h arm le ss b ec au seth e erro r di d notaff ect th e di strictc ourt’ssele ctio nof th e se nte ncei mp os ed
. See Un ited States v. Dav is , 47 8 F .3d 2 66, 273(5th Cir. 2 007). S pecifically, the Government c onte nds th at the district court implicitlycon sidere d th e lower se ntencin g ran gear gu ed b y An dino -Ortega , but madecl ear that it nonethel ess woul d h ave i mposed th e sa me sentenc e evenif th e lowe r ran ge app li ed
. SeeU n ited States v. Bon il la , 52 4 F .3d 6 47, 656(5th Cir. 200 8). We find no support for this cont ention in the recor d. 9 i s 10 to 1 6 m on t h s, a rang e f ou r t o f i ve t i m es l ow er t h an hi s s en t en ce. A n d even i f t h e G overnm en tis correc ttha tA n di n o- O rt ega i s p roperl y sub j ectt o an 8- l evel enhancem entunder § 2L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( C ) , the G ui del i nes range w oul d s t i l lonl y be 21 t o 2 7 m ont hs, a r ange s ubst ant i al l y l ow ert han t he s ent enc e An d i no- O r t ega r e c e i ve d. Bec aus e t he s e r ang e s , ho w e ve rc al c ul at e d, do no to ve r l ap w i t h t he

3
ran ge ap pl i ed to A n di n o- O rt ega, t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s er ror n ecess ari l y i n creased h is s e n te n c e a n d th u s a ffe c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts
. See , e . g. , Vi l l ega s , 404 F. 3d at364. W e f i n d that A n di n o- O rt ega h as sat i sf i ed h i s bu rden u n der t h e pl ai n - error t e s tb y s ho w i ng t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur tm i s ap pl i e d t he G ui de l i ne s i n c al c ul at i ng t he s e nt e nc i ng r ang e , t he c o ur ti m po s e d a s e nt e nc e b as e d o n t h a tmi s c a l c ul at i o n, a n d th e s e n te n c e w a s h ig h e rth a n th e co r r e c t r a n g e u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s . S ee i d. Fu rt h erm ore, becau se t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s er ror cl earl y af fect ed A n di n oO rt ega’ s s en t en ce, w e al so f i n d that t h e err or seri ou sl y af fect ed the fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pu bl i c repu t ati on of j u di ci al proceedi n gs. Se e i d. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we 4
vac at e hi s se nt enc e a nd re m and f orr es ent enc i ng. B T h e sec on d i ssue t h at A n di n o- O rt ega rai se s is th at t h e di st ri ctcourt a bu sed i t s di scr et i on i n ref u si n g h i s r equ estf or a one- l evelreducti on f or a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G
. § 3 E 1 .1 (b ). T h is re d u c tio n is Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/08/2010N o. 09- 40498

10 on l y ap pl i cabl e i f

t h e d efen da n tqu al i f i es f or t h e t w o- poi n treducti on un der § 3E 1. 1( a) an d “t h e of fen se l eveldeter m i n ed p ri or t o t h e operati on of subsect i on (a ) is le v e l 1 6 o rg r e a te r .” § 3 E 1 .1 (b ). W h e th e rA n d in o -O r te g a is e v e n e lig ib le f or th e a d d it i on alreducti on w i l ldep en d on t h e cal cul ati on of hi s base of

fen se l e ve l
. I f, as di s c us s e d ab o ve , he i s s ubj e c t t o o nl y a 4- l evel enh anc e m e nt pur s uantt o § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( D ) , t he n hi s b as e o f fe ns e l e ve lw i l lbe l e s s t han 16 a nd t hi s i ss ue w i l l be m oo t
. O n t he ot her hand, i f t he G ove r nm ent i s c or r ec t t hatan 8- l evelenh an cem en tapp l i es un der § 2L 1. 2(b) ( 1) ( C ) , t h en A n di n o- O rt ega’ s base
o ffe n s e le v e l w ill b e 1 6
. F o rp r u d e n tia l re a s o n s , w e d e c lin e to p a s s o n th is que s t i o n b e f

o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur tc al c ul at e s t he a ppl i c ab l e G ui de l i ne s r ang e a nd
r es ent enc es A ndi no- O r t ega. At t hat t i m e, A ndi no- O r t ega w i l lbe f r ee t o r e- urge h i s argum en t s r egard i n g § 3E 1. 1(b) , i f t h at provi si on i s app l i cabl e. IV Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , w e VA CA TE A ndi no - O r t e ga ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd RE M AN D f

o rr e s e nt e nc i ng c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t hi s o pi ni o n. Case: 09-40498 Document: 00511135111 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/08/2010