2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-7-2005 

# U SA v . S ant o s -Es trel l a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2346

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S ant os -Es tr e ll a" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 891. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/8911 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o. : 04- 2346 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO BE RT O S ANT OS - E S T RE L L A,

A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 03- C R - 00759 D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin

A r gued J une 29, 2005 B e f o re : N Y G A A R D , S M IT H , a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: J ul y7, 2005) D avi d E . T r oy er[A r gued] O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19106 C ouns el f orAppel l ee R o b e rt E p ste in B r et tG . Sw ei t zer[A r gued] D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia Feder al C our tD i vi s i on 601 W al nutSt r eet2

Sui t e 540 W es t- T he C ur t i s C ent er Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19106 C ouns el f orAppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . R ober t o Sant os - E s t r el l a pl eade d gui l t yt o bei ng an al i en w ho unl aw ful l yr eent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es aft erdepor t at i on i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) . H e w as s ent ence d t o for t y - one mont hs of i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed byt hr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed rel ease. T his app eal do es not chal l eng e his con vict i on . R at her, S antos- E strel l a con t end s, fort he fi r s tt i m e, t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n cal cul at i ng hi s offe ns e l evel underU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i ne ( “U . S. S. G . ”) § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) byappl y i ng t he 16 l evel e n h a n c e m e n t f

o r p rio r “ d ru g tra f

f ick in g ” o f

f e n se s. A p p lica tio n o f

th is e n h a n c e m e n t, acc or di ng t o Sant os - E s t r el l a, w as pr ecl uded undert he form al cat egor i cal appr oach embra ced i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tayl or , 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 (1 9 9 0 ), b e c a u se th e N e w Y o rk sta tu te un der w hich he h ad b een p revi ou sl ycon vict ed requ i red proof o f po sses si on on l y . S antosE strel l a al so assert s that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in r efusi ng t o d epartdo w nw ard becau se i tbel i eved i tl acke d t he author i t yt o do s o. R el y i ng on B l akel y v. W as hi ngt on , 1 2 4 S .C t. 2531 ( 2004) , Sant os - E s t r el l a ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs ats ent enci ng viol at ed h i s Fifth an d S i xth A m end m ent r i gh t s. O n M ar ch 9, 2005, t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti s s ued i t s deci s i on i n U ni t ed3

Stat es v. B ooker , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , hol di ng t hatt he fe der al s ent enci ng gui del i nes w e re n o t m a n d a to ry, b u t a d v is o ry o n ly. I d. at 75 7 . In th e w ak e o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s decis i on , t his C ou rtrequest ed thatt he p art i es address B ooker ’ s appl i cabi l i t y . A l t hough S a n to s-E stre lla a ss e rte d th a t B ookerappl i ed, he mai nt ai ned thatt he s ent enci ng i s s ues he ra is e d s h o u ld b e re s o lv e d . T her eaf t er , i n U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 6 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (e n b a n c ), th is C our texpl ai ned thati n di r ectappea l s of s ent ence s i m pos ed bef or e B ooker , w her e the D i s t r i ctC our terr oneous l yt r eat ed the G ui del i nes as m andat or yr athert han advi s or yand w her e w e ar e unabl e t o “as cert ai n w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tw oul d have i m pos ed a gr eat erorl es s ers ent ence underan advi s or yfr amew or k, ” pr ej udi ce i n a pl ai n err or anal y s i s “ca n be pr es um ed. ” I d. at164- 65. W e dec l ar ed thata “[ f] ai l ur e t o r emand for re s e n te n c in g . . . c o u ld a d v e rs e ly af f e c t th e f a ir n e s s a n d in te g ri ty o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s . A ccordi ng l y , defe nd ants sent enced un der the p revi ou sl ym and at oryregi m e w ho se s ent ence s ar e bei ng chal l enged on di r ectappea l m aybe abl e t o demonstr at e pl ai n err or and pr ej udi ce. ” I

d. at165. T hus , w e conc l uded thati n s uch ca s es a r emand for re se n ten c in g is w a rra n ted so th e D istric t C o u rt m a yc o n sid e r th e a p p ro p ria te s e n ten c e in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e . I

d. at166. I n l i ghtof ourhol di ng i n D a v is , w e as ked couns el forSant os - E s t r el l a dur i ng or al arg u m en t w h ethe r, if w e re m an d ed fo r resen tenc ing u n d er B ooker , w e w e re re q u ire d to re a c h th e iss u e s h e ra ise d o n a p p e a l. W e a lso n o ted th a t S a n to s-E stre lla h a d n o t ra ise d h is4

chal l enge t o t he s ent enci ng enhanc ementunderU . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) w hen he w as b ef o re the D istri ct C o u rtan d that there ex ist ed the p o ssibil itythat the D istri ct C o u rt m i ghtagr ee w i t h hi s pos i t i on on r emand. C ouns el conce ded thatourcons i der at i on of the a p p ro p ri a te n e s s o f

th is s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t w a s n o t “ a s tr ic t n e c e s s ity.” W e a g re e . C ons i s t entw i t h D a v is , 407 F. 3d at166, w e conc l ude thatt he s ent enci ng i s s ues r ai s ed by Sant os - E s t r el l a, i ncl udi ng t he appl i cabi l i t yof both t he enha ncementi n § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) and Tayl or ’ s cat egor i cal appr oach, ar e bes tdet erm i ned byt he D i s t r i ct C our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . Fort hatr eas on, w e w i l l aff i r m Sant os - E s t r el l a’ s convi ct i on, vaca t e hi s s ent ence , and r emand forr es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker .