T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

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

### Ju n e26,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 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. P E DR O OC ON- E S T RA DA, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2326 ( D. C. No . CR- 0 6 - 1 2 4 4 BB)

(D .N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D efe ndant - A ppel l antPedr o O con- E s tr ada e nt er ed a gui l typl ea t o one char ge of i l l egal r eentr yof an a l i en af t erdepor t at i on fora convi ct i on of an aggr avat ed fe l ony , i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) . A s a r es ul t , t he dis t ri ctcou rtsent enced him t o thi rtym on ths’ i m pri sonm ent and t w o y ears ’ su p e rv ise d re lea se . M r. O c o n -E sra d a a p p e a ls, a rg u in g th a t th e th irty -m o n th- 2 -

s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , w e a ffir m . M r . O con- E s t r ada w as arr es t ed bya fe der al agenton M ar ch 22, 2006 and w a s c h a rg e d w ith b e in g ill e g a llyp re se n t in th e U n ited S tate s s u b se q u e n t to depor t at i on foran aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on. H e pl eade d gui l tyt o thatchar ge s h o rt ly th e re a f

te r. Pr i ort o M r . O con- E s t r ada’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, a Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( PSR ) w as pr epar ed. T he PSR r evea l ed that , on M ay31, 1994, M r . O conE s t r ada w as convi ct ed of bur gl aryof a ha bi t at i on i n T exas s t at e court , w hi ch resu lt ed in a s u sp en d ed ten-y ea r prison sen tenc e. O n A p ri l 13 , 1 9 9 5 , h o w ev er, h is p ro b a tio n w a s re v o k e d a n d h e w a s s e n te n c e d to fiv e y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. C ons equent l y , t he PSR cal cul at ed M r . O con- E s tr ada’ s bas e offens e- l evel as ei ght an d rec o m m en d ed a six teen -l ev el en h an ce m en t bec au se h is prior b u rglary c o n v ic tio n q u a lifie d a s a n e n u m e ra te d “ c ri m e o f v io le n c e .” S e e U .S .S .G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) & cmt . n. 1( B ) ( i i i ) . T he PSR al s o r ecomm ended a thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc 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 t w enty -one. In addit i on , M r. O con -Est rada had three cri m i nal hi st orypo i nts , p l a c i n g h i m i n a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o ry o f I I . A b a s e o ffe n s e - l e v e l o f tw e n tyone combi ned w i t h a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I I r es ul t ed i n a G ui del i ne r ange of fort y - one t o fi fty - one mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch the Pr obat i on O ffi ce bel i eved t o be r eas onabl e.- 3 -

A tt he di s t r i ctcour t , M r . O con- E s tr ada c l ai m ed thathi s dat e of bi r th w as J anuary28, 1977 and thus he w as onl ys event een y ear s ol d w hen he w as convi ct ed of bur gl aryi n T exas . Pr i ort o hi s curr entoffe ns e, M r . O con- E s tr ada had bee n arr es t ed on thr ee oc cas i ons and had gi ven hi s dat e of bi r th as J une 3, 1976 eac h t i m e. N onethel es s , t he PSR adopt ed the 1977 dat e of bi r th and not ed hi s j uveni l e s t atus att he t i m e of hi s T exas bur gl aryconvi ct i on. A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , M r. O c o n -E stra d a a rg u e d th a t th e fo rty -o n e to fi fty - one mont h G ui del i ne r ange w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e he ha d been c onvi ct ed of the cr i m e of vi ol ence el even y ear s pr i orand had c om m i t t ed thatcr i m e w hen he w a s a m in o r. H e a lso a rg u e d th a t th e b u rg lar yfo r w h ich h e w a s c o n v icte d in T exas w as noti n fac ta cr i m e of vi ol ence . Forthes e r eas ons , he r eques t ed a s ent ence of t en mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he di s tr i ctcour t , how ever , concl uded t hathi s bur gl aryconvi ct i on w as i ndeed a cr i m e of vi ol ence and thus a s i xt een lev e l en h a n c e m e n t to h is b a se o ffe n se -le v e l w a s a p p ro p ria te. B u t, i t ag re e d w ith M r . O con- E s t r ada thathi s j uveni l e s t atus w as a r el evants ent enci ng fac t orand, as a r es ul t , i tfound thata dow nw ar d var i ance fr om the advi s oryG ui del i ne r ange w as appr opr i at e. I I A pl t . A pp. ( St at ementof R eas ons ) at3. A s a r es ul t , i ts ent ence d hi m t o t hi r t ym ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entand tw o y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. O n appea l , M r . O con- E s t r ada mai nt ai ns that , des pi t e the fa cti ti s el even m o n ths less tha n the m inim u m ad v isoryG u ideline ra n g e, th e d istri ct co u rt ’s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e i ts t i l l i ncl udes a s i xt een- l evel enhanc ementfor- 4 -

an offens e he c om m i t t ed as a j uveni l e overel even y ear s ago. H e cl ai m s thatthe s ent ence does notadequa t el ycompensa t e forthe fa ctthathe w as a mi noratthe t i m e of the pri or offen se. A dd i t i on al l y , he asks u s t o reverse hi s sent ence b ecause th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to a d e q u a telye x p lain w h yit se n ten c e d h im to th irty m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entr athert han the t en mont hs he r eques t ed. W h e n re v ie w in g a c h a lle n g e d s e n te n c e , w e e n g a g e in a tw o -s te p a n a lysis . Fi r s t , w e det erm i ne w hethert he di s tr i ctcour tcorr ect l ycal cul at ed the G ui del i ne s ent ence , “r evi ew i ng i t s l egal concl us i ons de novo and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs for cl earerr or . ” U ni t ed St at es v. K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1055 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( per cur i am). Second, w e cons i derw hetherthe ul t i m at e s ent ence i s r eas onabl e i n l i ght of the fa ct or s pr ovi ded i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . U ni t ed St at es v. J ar i l l o- L una, 478 F . 3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 2 8 -29 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l ycal cul at ed the G ui del i nes s ent ence . M r . O conE s t r ada f

i r s tappea r s t o ar gue thatthe di s tr i ctcour ti m pr oper l yappl i ed the G ui del i nes beca us e hi s pr i orT exas convi ct i on forbur gl arydoes notcons t i tut e a cri m e of v i olence supp ort i ng a si xteen- l evel enhan cem ent t o h i s base offe nse l evel . T hi s ar gum enti s unconvi nci ng gi ven thatthe def i ni t i on of a “ cr i m e of v iolen ce ” fo u n d in the co m m en ts t o U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 sp ec ifi ca ll yli sts “b u rglary of a dw el l i ng” as a cr i m e of vi ol ence . See U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2, cmt . n. 1( B ) ( i i i ) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. G uadar do, 40 F. 3d 102 ( 5th C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng that b u rglaryo f a d w ell ing in T ex as c o n sti tutes a c ri m e o f v iolen ce ). M o reo v er, M r.- 5 -

O c o n -E stra d a ’s a lleg e d sta tu s a s a m in o r d o e s n o t alte r th e c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f h is pr i oroffe ns e as a cr i m e of vi ol ence . M r . O con- E s t r ada’ s r el i ance on ourunpubl i s hed dec i s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. O r tuno- C abal l er o, 187 F. A pp’ x 814 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , i s unavai l i ng. I n that c a se , w e e x p lain e d : B eca us e defendanthas notbeen c onvi ct ed of a nyof the cr i m es s p e c i fi c a l l ye n u me r a t e d i n t h e fi r s tp o r t i o n o f § 2 L1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ’ s “ c r i me of vi ol ence ” def

i ni t i on, t he onl yw ayhe coul d be s ubj ect ed t o the 16- l evel enhanc ementt her eunderi s i f hi s pr i orC ol or ado s t at e convi ct i on forat t empt ed fi r s tdegr ee c r i m i nal tr es pas s of a dw el l i ng “had a s an el ementt he us e, at t empt ed us e, orthr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a g a in s t th e p e rs o n o f

a n o th e r.” I d. at817 ( al t er at i on om i t t ed) . H er e, bur gl aryof a dw el l i ng i s s peci fi cal l yl i s t ed as a cr i m e of vi ol ence w i t hi n U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2, cmt . n. 1( B ) ( i i i ) . T hatl i s t i ng, s ta n d in g a lo n e , re n d e rs O rt u n o -C a b a lle ro in a p p o s ite . M r . O con- E s t r ada f

ur t hercont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n enhanc i ng hi s offe ns e- l evel bas ed on hi s pr i orconvi ct i on becaus e U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2( d) ( 2) pr ohi bi t s t aki ng a j uveni l e convi ct i on i nt o acc ounti f the defendantw as r el eas ed fr om confi nementfort hatoffe ns e more than fi ve y ear s pr i ort o the offens e for w hi ch he i s curr ent l ybei ng s ent ence d. I n s o ar gui ng, he conf l at es the rul es r egar di ng t he ca l cul at i on of a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw i th thos e r egar di ng t he cal cul at i on of an offens e- l evel . Sect i on 4A 1. 2, ent i t l ed “D efi ni t i ons and I ns t ruct i ons forC om put i ng C r i m i nal H i s t or y , ” pr ovi des i ns truct i ons for cal cul at i ng a defendant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s ; i thas not hi ng t o do w i th the- 6 -

cal cul at i on of an offens e- l evel and pl ace s no l i m i t at i on on t he enha ncementof a defe ndant ’ s offe ns e- l evel forpr i orcr i m es of vi ol ence . Fi nal l y , M r . O con- E s t r ada a r gues thatthe di s tr i ctcour tm i s appl i ed the G ui del i nes beca us e the s i xt een- l evel enhanc ementw as fora cr i m e thatoccurr ed m o re th a n e lev e n y e a rs p rio r to h is illeg a l re e n try . T h is a rg u m e n t sim ilarlyfa ils beca us e U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2 does notr equi r e thata pr i orconvi ct i on fora cr i m e of vi ol ence be w i t hi n a ce r t ai n per i od of t i m e fr om a r eentryi n or dert o s uppor tan en h an ce m en t. S ee U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 , cm t. n . 1 (B )(vii i) . T h u s, the d istri ct co u rt di d noterri n concl udi ng t hatM r . O con- E s tr ada’ s pr i orconvi ct i on cons t i tut ed a c rim e o f v io len c e a n d n e c e ss itate d a six tee n -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t. T ur ni ng t o t he r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence , M r . O con- E s tr ada a ver s that t he thi r t y - m ont h s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e i ts t i l l i ncl udes an enha ncement fora cr i m e comm i t t ed w hi l e a mi nor , and he c l ai m s the di s tr i ctcour tdi d notgi ve adequa t e r eas ons foronl yr educi ng hi s s ent ence byel even mont hs ( fr om the b o tto m o f

th e G u id e lin e ra n g e ) r a th e r t h a n b yth e th ir ty-o n e m o n th s h e re q u e s te d . B o th a rg u m e n ts, h o w e v e r, ar e w ith o u t m e rit. T h e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly cons i der ed the fa ctt hatM r . O con- E s tr ada w as a j uveni l e w hen he c om m i t t ed the pr i oroffe ns e and, due t o t hatfac t , the courti m pos ed a s ent ence el even mont hs b e l o w t h e mi n i mu m a d v i s o r yGu i d e l i n e s e n t e n c e i n a c c o r d a n c e wi th 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) ’ s s ent enci ng fac t or s . I I I A pl t . A pp. at9- 10. M or e s peci fi cal l y , the di s t r i ctcour ts t at ed the fol l ow i ng:- 7 -

T he C our thas r evi ew ed the fa ctual fi ndi ngs and has cons i der ed the s ent enci ng gui del i ne appl i cat i ons . T he C our thas al s o cons i der ed the fa ctors se t fo rth in 1 8 U n it ed S tat es C o d e, S ec ti o n 3 5 5 3 . T h e C o u rt fi nds t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t oryand char act er i s t i cs of the defendanti ndi cat e thatthe gui del i nes do not a d e q u a te ly ac c o u n t fo r h is ju v e n ile s ta tu s a t th e tim e o f th e o ffe n s e . T her efor e, al t hough t he C our thas cons i der ed the s er i ous nes s of the offe ns e and the s er i ous nes s of thi s offe ns e i n t erm s of r eent er i ng the countr y , and t o affor d adequa t e det err ence t o cr i m i nal conducti n the fu ture b ythis de fe n d an t and p rotec t th e p u b li c a s n ec essa ry , the C o u rt w i l l dep artdo w nw ard three l evels , and that w i l l m ake thi s an offense le v e l o f 1 8 , ra th e r t h a n 2 1 , a s in d ic a te d in th e p re s e n te n c e re p o rt . T ogetherw i t h a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof 2 r es ul t s i n a gui del i ne i m pr i s onm entr ange of 30 t o 37 m onths . . . . T her efor e, . . . Pedr o O conE stra d a , w ill b e c o m m itt e d to th e c u sto d yo f th e B u re a u o f

P riso n s to serve a term of 3 0 m on t hs. Id . T h u s, fo r th e p u rp o se s o f d e ter re n c e a n d p ro tec tin g th e p u b lic a n d in cons i der at i on of the s er i ous nes s of the offens e ( al l fac t or s l i s t ed i n § 3553( a) ) , t he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned thatt hi r tym onths w as an appr opr i at e s ent ence . I n doi ng s o, t he courtexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on underU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , t o i m pos e a s ent ence l ow erthan thats ugges t ed bythe pr oper l ycal cul at ed G ui del i ne r ange be caus e M r . O con- E s tr ada w as a mi norw hen he c om m i t t ed the offe ns e under l y i ng hi s pr i orconvi ct i on. T he r eas ons gi ven forarr i vi ng atthe t hi r t y - m ont h s ent ence w er e s uffi ci ent . See J ar i l l o- L una, 478 F. 3d at1230. A s a- 8 -

re su lt, th e d istric t co u rt im p o se d a p ro c e d u ra llya n d su b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le s ent ence . AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge