Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and 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

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50673 Su m m ar yC al 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. E D W IN JO S E E S C O B A R

- O R T E Z , al so kn ow n as Jose C arl os R odri gu ez , 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 W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 09- C R

- 995- 1
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D AV IS an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * E dw i n Jose E scobar- O rt ez ( E scobar) p leaded gu i l t y t o i l l egal reentry f ol l ow i n g dep ort ati on . B ecau se E scobar h ad been convic t ed of a cri m e of vi ol en ce

- robbery i n T exas - pri or t o dep ort ati on , t h e presentence reportrec om m en ded increasin gh is o ffen se lev e l by1 6 lev e ls, p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G
. § 2 L 1 .2(b )(1)(A)(ii). A tsentenci n g, E scobar argued t h at al t h ou gh t h e G overnm en tsubm i t t ed t h e j u dg m en tan d the i n di ct m en tregardi n g h i s r obbery con vi ct i on i n T exas, t h ose docum en t s w ere not suff i ci en tt o prove t h at E scobar h a d com m i t t ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 3, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50673 Document: 00511131053 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2010N o. 09- 50673

2 rob b ery . S p ecif

i ca l l y, E scob a r arg u ed tha t alth ou gh h e w a s ch a rg ed w i th a g g r a v a te dro b b e r y , h e p le a d e dg u iltyto ale s s e rc h a r g e . In s u p p o r t o f th is a rg u m en t, E scob a r reli ed on the state cou rt j u d ge m en t. T yp ed on the j u d gm en t, w h i ch i s a p rep ri n tedf orm , i s th e sta te m e n t th a t E scob a r w a s ch a rg ed w i th “a g g r a v a te dro b b e r y , a1 s t d e g r e e fe lo n yo ffe n s e a s ch a r g e din th e in d ic tm e n t.” P repri n t ed n ext on t h e j u dg m en ti s t h e st atem en tth at “t h e State h aving f i l ed [ a] w r i t t e n M o t i o n t o r e duc e t he o f fe ns e c har ge d t o t he l e s s e ra nd i nc l u ded m i sdem ean or of

fen se of: ” foll ow ed by t h e typed st atem en t“robbery a 2n d d egree fe l o ny o f

fe ns e a s cha r ge d i n t he i ndi c t m e nt . ” Esc o ba ra r gue d t hatb e c aus e t he pr e pr i nt e d t e rm “l e s s e ra nd i nc l ude d m i s de m e ano ro f fe ns e ” c o nf

l i c t s w i t h t he t yped t er m “r obbe r y a 2nd degr ee fel ony, ” the G ove r nm enth ad n otprove n t hat he c o m m i t t e d ar o bb e r y. The di s t r i c tc o ur to ve r r ul e d E scoba r ’ s o bj e c t i o n a nd de t e r m i ne d t hatE s c o ba r ’ s gui de l i ne s ra ngew as 37 t o 46 m o nt hs i n pr i s o n. The court sentenced E scobar t o 37 m on t h s i n pri son an d to t h ree years of sup ervi sed rel ease. Fol l ow i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U
. S
. 220 ( 200 5) , sentences are re v ie w e d fo r r e a so n a b len e ss inli g h t of th e se n te n cin gfac to rs in§ 3 5 5 3 (a ). Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 402 F
. 3d 511 , 519
- 20 ( 5th C i r. 200 5)
. P u rsuan tt o G a ll v . Uni t e d St ate s , 5 5 2 U
. S
. 38, 51 ( 200 7) , t h i s c ou rteng ages i n a bi f u rcat ed a n a ly s is o f th e s e n te n c e im p o s e db yth e d is tr ic t co u r t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. D el ga d oMart i n ez, 564 F
. 3d750 , 7 52 ( 5th C i r. 200 9)
. Th e courtf i rstexam i n es w h et h er th e d i stri ct cou rt com m i tted a n y p roce d u ra lerro rs, “su ch a s fai l i n g to ca l cu l a te (o rim p r o p e r lyc a l c u la tin g) th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . . . .” G a ll , 55 2 U
. S
. at 51
. If t h ere i s no such err or or t h e error i s h arm l ess, t h e revi ew i n g court m ay p roceed t o t h e sec on d st ep an d consi der t h e substantive reasona bl en ess of t h e sentence. S e eD e lga d o -Ma r tin ez, 5 6 4 F .3 da t 7 5 1 -5 3
. E scobar argues h ere t h at th e G overnm en tdi d n otcarr y i t s burd en of provin g t h at he ha d been convi ct ed of robbery. E scobar r eason s t h at based on t h e contr ad i ct i on s i n t h e j u dg m en tcit ed ab ove, he w a s con vi ct ed of ei t h er a Case: 09-50673 Document: 00511131053 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2010N o. 09- 50673

3 l es se ri ncl uded m i sdem ea n orof fens e o ra 2nd de gr ee fel ony r obbe r y. Esc obar argu es t h at i n T exas, theftis a les ser i n cl u ded off en se of robbery, an d ba sed on t h e fact s of

hi s of fen se, h i s con vi ct i on cou l d h ave been f or a C l ass B m i sdem ean or t h ef tof fen se. E scobar c on cedes t h at Texa s r obbery i s a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un der t he G ui de l i ne s b as e d o n Un i t ed S t ate s v. S an t i est eban

- Hernan d ez , 469 F. 3d 376, 3 7 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). Th e G ove r nm entr es ponds t hatt he fac t s al l ege d i n t he i ndi c t m ent , t hat Esc o ba r c ut and s t ab be d hi s vi c t i m w i t h a br o ke n bo t t l e i n t he c o ur s e of com m i t t i n g t h ef

tof hi s vic t i m ’ s cash , tracks the l an gu age of t h e T exas robbery of fen se. Th e G overnm en ta l so respon ds t h at th e m an u al l y- en t ered i n f orm ati on on t he j udgm entes t abl i she s t hatE sc obarw as c onvi c t ed o f r obbe r y and t hatt hat in fo r m a tio n co n tr o ls o v e rth e p r in te din fo r m a tio n . Thi s c o ur tr e vi e w s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n o ra ppli c at i o n o f t he G u id e lin e s d e n o v o a n dits fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo rcle a re r r o r . Uni t e d S t at e s v. C isn er o s-G u t i errez , 5 17 F. 3d7 51 , 7 64 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8)
. The G o ve r nm e ntb e ar s t h e bu rden of provi n g by a p repon deran ce of t h e rel evan tan d rel i able evi den ce t h e fact s sup porti n g a sentenci n g en h an cem en t , i n cl u di n g pri or conv i ct i on s. Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 5 2 3 F .3d 5 1 9 , 5 2 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). B ecau se t h e t yp ed p ort i on of t h e j u dg m en tconf

l i ct s w i t h t h e prepri n t ed porti on of

t h e j u dg m en t , w e f

i n d that t h e t yp ed port i on of t h e j u dg m en tcontr ol s. Se e T HE ADD I

SON E. BULLARD , 2 5 8 F . 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 1 9 ); seealso T h om as v. T

agga rt , 2 09 U
. S. 3 85 , 3 89 ( 19 08 )
. The t yp e d po r t i o n o f t he j udg m e nt pro vi des t hatE sc obarpl eade d gui l t y t o “ r obbe r y a 2nd degr ee f el ony o f fens e a s cha rged i n t h e i n di ct m en t . ” T exas robbery i s c h aract eri zed as a cri m e of vi ol en ce forth e p u rp o se s o f a 1 6 -lev e l en h a n ce m e n tp u rs u a n t to § 2 L 1 .2(b )(1)(A)(ii). S an t i est eban

- Hernan d ez , 4 6 9 F .3 da t 3 8 1
. M oreover, t h e charges i n t h e indic t m en ta n al yzed i n li gh tof the of fen ses of r obb ery by bo di l y i nj ury and si m pl e thef ts how t hatE sc obarc oul d nothave pl eade d gui l t y t o the l es se ri ncl u d ed o f fens e o f s i m pl e thef

t . I ni t i al l y, w hat Case: 09-50673 Document: 00511131053 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2010N o. 09- 50673

4 c o ns t i t ut e s a l e s s e r i nc l ud e d o f fe ns e i n Te x a s i s d e f i ne d b y s t a t ut e , and t hat d e fin itio n a p p lie s to g u iltyp le a s a n dto tr ia ls
. S eeMu rr ayv. S ta te , 302 S. W
. 3d 8 7 4 , 8 7 7 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ); T EX . C ODE C R I M P. ar t . 37. 09. T h e t h eory setfor t h in t h e i n di ct m en ti n di cat es t h at E scobar c om m i t t ed t h ef tby i n f l i ct i n g bod i l y i nj u ry by st abb i n g an d cutt i n g t h e vi ct i m w i t h a broken b o tt le
. T h e s e fa c ts co u ldco n s tit u te ro b b e r yb yb o d i l yinju r y . SeeCast i l lo v . S ta te , 94 4 S
. W
. 2 d4 4 0 , 4 4 2 (T ex . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). H ow ev er, th eyco u l dn ot con sti tu te s im p le th e ft. S ee T EX . P ENAL C ODE§ 3 1 .0 3 ; B ig n a ll v . S ta te , 887 S. W
. 2d 21, 23 (Tex
. Cri m . App. 19 94 )
. I n B ig n a ll , th e cou rt sta tedth a t “i f an y ev i d en ce ex i sts i n t he r ec or d t hatw oul d per m i ta r at i onalj ury t o f i nd t hata deadly w eapo n w as n ot u sed or exh ib i ted , A p p ell a n t i s en ti tl ed to a n i n stru cti on on the ft
. ” Id
. at23. B eca u se E scob a r p l ea d ed gu i l ty “as ch a rg ed i n the i n d i ctm en t, ” h e a d m i tted to c ut t i ng andst ab bi ng hi s v i c t i m w i t h ab r o ke n b o t t l e , w hi c h ne ga t e s a ny argu m en tt h at he coul d h ave p l ead ed g u il t y t o t h e l esseri n cl u ded of fen se of s im p le th e ft. Id
. T h u s, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot err by f i n di n g t h at th e G overnm en tproved th a t E scob a r h a dbe en con victedo f rob b ery , a crim e of viol en ce, p ri or to depor t ati on and t hata 16
- l eve lenhance m entt o hi s bas e o f fens e l eve lw as wa r r a n t e d
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-50673 Document: 00511131053 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/03/2010