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

N o. 08- 20620

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. PE D RO D AV I D G U TI ER RE Z- H ER N AN D EZ al so kn ow n as Ped ro D avid G u t i errez , al so kn ow n as Ped ro G u t i errez D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore K IN G , H IG G IN B O T H A M , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P A T R I C KE
. H I G G I N B O T H A M: G ut i e r r e z - H e r nand e z pl e d g ui l t y t o b e i ng i n t he U ni t e d St at e s f o l l o w i ng d e p o r t a t i o n . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti n c r e a s e d h i s p r i s o n s e n t e n c e bya p p l y i n gt wo gu i del i n e dep art u res t h at w ere r eco m m e nde d b y t he pr obati on of f i cer. G u t i errez ap pea l s hi s s en t en ce. I T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a d o p te d th e p r e s e n t e n c e re p o r t w h ic h p r e lim in a r ily cal cul ated a gu i del i n e sentence ran ge of 10 t o 16 m on t h s based on a t ot alof fen se l evelof 10 an d a cri m i n alhi st ory cat egory of I II
. T h e P S R t h en rec om m en ded t w o gu i del i n e d epa rt u res. F i rst , itpoi n t ed to a 20 08 stat e ha n dg u n convi ct i on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20620

5 5 2 U .S

. 3 8(2 0 0 7). 1 United States v. Armstrong, 5 5 0F .3 d 3 8 2 , 4 0 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 2 Id

. 3 2 for w hi c h Gut i e r r e z w as s e nt e nc e d t o 2 0 da ys i m pr i s o nm e nt
. The r eport sugge st ed a depar t ure u nder§ 4A 1. 3, Inadequac y of C r i m i nalH i st or y Cate gor y, becau se i f

t h e cr i m e ha d been federal l y prosecuted, G u t i errez w ou l d h ave faced a gr eat ers ent enc e. Sec ond, t he PS R r ec om m ended a depar t ure under § 5 K 2. 0, O t he rG r o unds f

o rD e pa r t ur e , b as e d o n a 2 00 3 s t at e dr ug c o nvi c t i o n, w hi c h, based on a p ol i ce depa rt m en tof fen se r eport, t h e probati on of f i cer consi dered
m ore s eri ou s t h an t h e gu i del i n es acc ou n te d f or. G u t i errez f

i l ed w ri t t en o bj e c t i o ns t o t he upwar d d e pa r t ur e s i n t he PSR

. I n i t s s t at e m e nto f r e as o ns , t he di st ri ctcourtrepeated t h e l an gu a g e fr o m the P S R an d check ed the boxes in d ic a t in gth a tb o t h d e p a r t u r e p r o v i s i o n s a p p l i e d , t h e r e b yi n c r e a s i n gG u t ie r r e z ’s of fens e l eve lf

r om 10 t o 1 7
. T h i s resu l t ed i n a gui del i nes r ange o f 30 t o 3 7
m on t h s. G u t i errez w as sentenced to 30 m on t h s. II A U n der G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , o u rp r o c e s s o f r e v ie w in ga s e n te n c e is 1 bi f ur c at e d. “ W e f

i r s te xa m i ne w he t he rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o m m i t t e d a ny s ig n ific a n t p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r , su c h a s : (1 ) fa ilin gto ca lc u la te (o rim p r o p e r ly
c al c ul at i ng) t he appl i c abl e G ui del i nes r ange; ( 2) t r eat i n g t he G ui del i nes as m an da t ory; ( 3) fai l i n g t o consi der t h e 18 U
. S

. C

. § 3553 ( a) fact ors; ( 4) deter m i ni ng a s e n te n c e b a s e d o n c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s fa c ts ; o r( 5 ) fa ilin gt o a d e q u a te ly e x p la in t he c ho s e n s e nt e nc e , i nc l udi ng an e xp l ana t i o n f o ra ny de vi at i o n f

r o m t he G u i del i n es r an ge. ” U n der t h i s st ep of an al yzi n g f or proc edu ralerr or, w e revi ew 2 t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s i n t erpret ati on or ap pl i cat i on of t h e sentenci n g gu i del i n es de
novo , an d i t s fact u alf i n di n gs f

or c l ear err or. N ext, i f t h e di st ri ct court’ s deci si on 3N o. 08- 20620

Id

. 4 Id

. 5 U.S.S.G. § 4A 1.3(a)(4)(A) (“[T]h e co urt shall det ermineth e exte nt of adepartureu nder 6 this subsectionbyu sing , as a refere nce, thecri minal historycategoryapp licableto defen dant s whose crimin al histo ry or likelihoo d to recidiv ate most closelyrese mbles that of the de fe n dant’ s.”); United States v. Jones , 9 0 5F .2 d 8 6 7 , 8 6 9( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 0). 3 i s pr o c e dur al l y s o und, w e c o nsi de rt he s ubs t ant i ve r e as o nab l e ne s s o f t he
se nt enc e, c ons i der i ng t he fac t or s i n 18 U
. S. C

. § 3553( a)

. W e a ppl y a 4 presum pti on of

reasonab l en ess t o gu i del i n e s e n t en ces an d revi ew f or abu se of di scr et i on sentences t h at i n cl u de an up w ard or dow n w ard d epa rt u re as provi ded f or i n t h e gu i del i n es. 5 B G u t i errez asser t s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtm i sapp l i ed the dep art u re g u i d e l i n e s , a p r o c e d u r a lc h a l l e ng e t h a twe r e v i e w de no vo . Th e di st ri ctcourt j us t i f i e d a § 4 A1. 3 de pa r t ur e b y r e as o ni ng t hatG ut i e r r e z ’ s 2 008 s t at e g un con v i ct i on un derst ated his cr i m i n alhi st ory becau se i f t h e cr i m e ha d been federal l y prosecuted G u t i errez w ou l d h ave been exposed t o pros e c ut i o n a s af e l on i n possess i on of

a f i rearm , an of

fen se t h at c arri es a substanti al l y h i gh er s en t en ce th a n th e s ta te o ffe n s e . T h e pri or s t ate s en t en ce m ay w el lu n d e r-r e present t h e ser i ou sness of G u t i errez ’ s c ri m i n alhi st ory. H ow ever, w e need not r each tha tqu est i on becau se th e d i stri ct cou rt erred i n de term i n i n g t h e m a n n er in w h i ch an ad eq u a te crim i n a lh i story score i s ac cou n ted f or. T h e g u i d eli n es m a k e p l a i n tha t a de pa r t ur e b as e d on t he i nad e qua c y o f t he def e nda nt ’ s c r i m i nalhi s t o r y i s m ad e bya dj us t i ng t he c r i m i nalhi s t o r y c at e go r y. H e r e , ho w e ve r , de s pi t e ci t i ng t he 6 dep art u re provi si on f or i n ad equ acy of

cr i m i n al h isto ry , t h e di st ri ctcourt in c r e a s e d G u tie r r e z ’ s o ffe n s e le v e l, n o t h is cr im in a l h is to r yca te g o r y . AN o. 08- 20620

Sh epard v. Un ited

States. , 5 4 4U .S

. 1 3 , 2 6(2 0 0 5). 7 United States v. Gonzales , 4 8 4F .3 d 7 1 2 , 7 1 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 8 See Sh epard , 5 4 4U .S

. at 2 6 ; Taylor v. Un ited States , 4 9 5U .S

. 5 7 5 , 6 0 0( 1 9 9 0). 9 4 d e p a r tu r e b a s e d o n th e in a d e q u a c yo f c r im in a l h i st ory i s no t m ad e b y adj us t i ng t h e fact or t h at acc ou n t s f or t h e of

fen se l evelof

t h e i ns t antcr i m e. The pr o c e dur al err o rc r e at e s a s i gni f i c antdi f

fe r e nc e i n t he s e nt e nc i ng
r a n g e in th is ca s e . In c r e a s in g G u tie r r e z ’ s o ffe n s e le v e l fr o m 1 0 to 1 7 re s u lte d in
a se n te n cin g rang e of 30 to 37 m on t h s. I n com pa ri son, a m ovem en tf rom c r i m i nalhi st or y c at ego r y I I I t o c at ego r y IV w oul d h ave r es ul t ed i n a range of 15 to 2 1 m o n th s . E v e n m o v in gto th e h ig h e s t c r im in a l h is to r yc a te g o r yo f V I w o u ld hav e r e s ul t e d i n a r ang e o f 2 4 t o 3 0 m o nt hs

— be l o w t he r ang e o f 30 t o 3 7 m o nt hs
r e a c h e d b y a dju s tin gth e o ffe n s e le v e l. C T h e d istr ict co u rt a lso cite d § 5 K 2 .0 a s a gr o u n d for d e p a rtu re . T o j u stify th i s gu i d eli n e d ep a rtu re, th e cou rt l oo k ed to G u ti err e z ’ s 2 0 0 3 T ex a s state conviction f

or del i very of

a contr ol l ed su bstance. Th e di st ri ctcourtrec ogn i zed th a t t h e o ffe n s e d id n o t q u a lify fo rth e fe lo n yd r u g t r a ffic k in ge n h a n c e m e n t in § 2 L1. 2 as thi s Cour tha s di r e c t l y he l d t hat , w i t ho utm o r e de t ai li n t he i n di ct m en t or oth er S h epard

- ap proved docum en t , t h e T exas delivery of fen se 7 d o e s n o t q u a li fyfor th e en h a n ce m e n t: “T h e sta tu to ry d e fin iti o n of d e li v e ry of a
c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e in T e x a s . . . e n c o m p a s s e s a c tiv ity th a t d o e s n o t fa ll w ith in
s e c t i o n 2 L1. 2' s de f

i ni t i o n o f

‘ dr ug t r af

f i c ki ng o f

fe ns e . ’ ” Fo rt he de pa r t ur e , t he

8 di st ri ctcourtl ooked t o t h e pol i ce r eport— a docu m en ti tcoul d n otconsi der un der t he § 2L1. 2 e nhan c em en t

— t o de t er m i ne t hat G ut i er r ez ’ s c onducti nvol ved an 9
ac t uals al e of

co c ai ne , ac t i vi t y w i t hi n t he fe de r alde f i ni t i o n o f

a dr ug t r af

f i c ki ng offen se, a n d n ot m ere l y a n off er to sell , w h i ch is o u ts id e t h e d efi n i ti on . It d e te r m in e d th a t G u tie r r e z ’ s co n d u c t w o u ld h a v e tr ig g e r e d th e e n h a n c e m e n t ifN o. 08- 20620

U.S.S.G. § § 5 K2.1–5 K2.5. 105 4 3U .S

. 2 2 0(2 0 0 5). 11 United States v. Arnaou t , 4 3 1 F .3 d 9 9 4 , 1 0 0 3( 7 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5). 12 United States v. Mohamed , 4 5 9F .3 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 6( 9 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6). 13 5 t h e i n di ct m en th ad d escr i bed G u t i errez ’ s con du cti n detai l
. I tt h eref ore app l i ed t h e § 5K 2. 0 dep art u re. Adi st ri ctcourtcann otesc ap e T aylor and S h epard by l ookin g to a pol i ce report

— w h i ch i tcoul d n otearl i er use t o deter m i n e w h et h er a pri or c on vi ct i on w as a dr ug t r af

f i c ki ng o f

fe ns e — t o l at e rj us t i f y a de pa r t ur e o n t he b as i s t hatt he enhancem ents hould have appl i ed. Even m or e f und am ent al l y, t he 2003
c o nvi c t i o n c anno ts upp o r tt hi s de pa r t ur e b e c aus e pr i o rof fens e s s e r ve a s t he basi s f or § 4A 1. 3 dep art u r e s, w h i ch speci f i cal l y f ocus on cri m i n alhi st ory, an d n ot § 5 K 2. 0 de pa r t ur e s , w hi c h con si de rc i r c um s t anc e s o f t he i ns t anto f

fe ns e . The provi si on i den t i f

i es in tera lia as r el evant c i r c um st ance s deat h, physi c ali nj ury, ps yc ho l ogi cal inj ur y, a bd uc t i o n, a nd p r o pe r t y da m ag e , a l lpe r t i ne ntt o t he of fen se at h an d. Th e di st ri ctcourtcom m i t t ed p rocedural errorun der t h e f i rst 10 ste p of G a ll ; i tg av e no v al i d ba s i s f o r t he § 5K2. 0 de pa r t ur e a nd m i s ap pl i e d t he § 4 A 1 .3 d e p a r tu r e . D Th e g ove r nm en t u rges t hat t hi s C our tc an af f i r m t he s ent enc e a s re a so n a b le, u n d e r th e se co n d ste p of G a ll , d e s p ite th e p r o c e d u r a l e r r o rin cal cul ati n g t h e gu i del i n e sentenci n g ran ge. If t h i s c ase w ere i n t h e Sev en t h or N i n t h C i rcui tt h at argum en tm i gh tha ve t ract i on . Th ose ci rcui t s, af t er Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker di r e c t e d t hatt he G ui de l i ne s w e r e a dv i s o r y, f o und t hatt he 11 gui del i ne depar t ure s pro vi si ons had bee n “ r ender ed obs ol et e” and “ r epl ac ed by 12 th e re q u ir e m e n t t h a t ju d g e s im p o s e a ‘ r e a s o n a b le ’s e n te n c e .” 13N o. 08- 20620

U n i te dSta tesv . V

illegas , 4 04F
. 3d 3 55, 361 (5th Cir. 2 005). It i s nosalient 14 distinctionth at the errorin Villegasinvolved the application of an enh anc ementprovi sionan d not a de parture p rovisionbe cau se dep artures are p art of th e guidelin es : “ a s en tenc e th at include s anupward o r do wnward de parture a s allowed byth e Gui delines . . . is also a Guidelinesentenc e.” Un ited Statesv . Tzep -M

ej ia , 4 6 1 F .3 d 5 2 2 , 5 2 5( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6). 1 8U .S .C

. § 3 5 5 3 (a)( 4). 15 United States v. Crawford , 40 7 F .3d 1 174 , 11 78 (11thC ir. 200 5) (“This co nsultation 16 requirement, at aminimum, obli ge s thedistrict court tocalculate correc tly the sente ncing ran ge pr es crib edb yth e Guid elin es .”). See also United States v. McBride , 434 F.3d 470 , 47 7 (6 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6) (“ [T]h e app ro priateGui de lin e ran ge—inclu din gGui de lin e de parture s—mu st stillbecon sidere d. . .
. This Gui deline sente nce is th en consi dered in the cont ext of the sectio n 3 5 5 3 (a) factor s.”). 6 Thi s Ci r c ui t , ho w e ve r , ha s f o und o t he r w i s e . I n a c as e v acat i ng and
r e ma n d i n gb e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t mi s a p p l i e d a g u i d e l i n e e n h a n c e me n t , we stated “no th i n g su gg ests th a t B o o keri nj e c t e dar e a s o n ab l e ne s s s t and ar d i nt o t he que s t i o n whet he rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o pe r l y i nt e r pr e t e d a nd a ppl i e d t he G u id e li n e s o rth a ta n a p p e ll a t e c o u r tn o lo n g e rr e v ie w s a d is t r ic tc o u r t 's in te r p r e ta tio n a n d a p p lic a tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s d e n o v o .” B ooker l ef ti n f orce 14 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (f) w h ic h p r o v id e s : “ If t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a ls d e te r m in e s t h a t
. . . t he s ent enc e w as i m pos ed i n vi ol at i on o f l aw ori m pos ed as a r es ul tof an i nc o r r e c t ap pl i c at i o n o f t he s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s , t he c o ur t s hal l rem an d the
ca s e f o r f ur t he r s e nt e nc i ng pr o c e e di ngs w i t h s uc h i ns t r uc t i o ns as t he court
c o ns i de r s a ppr o pr i at e . ” A di st ri ct c o ur tm us tc o r r e c t l y ap pl y t he s e nt e nc i ng gu i del i n es. O f c o ur s e , a c o ur tm ayi m po s e a no n- gui de l i ne s se nt e nc e b as e d o n t he
r e as o nab l e ne s s fac t o r s i n 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 55 3( a)

. But on e of those fac t o r s i s t he
s e nt e nc e est abl i s he d b y t he g ui de l i ne s . The pr o pe r l y- c al c ul at e d g ui de l i ne 15 sentenci n g ran ge i s the poi n tfr om w h i ch the courtm ay va ry, a necessary fact or i n de t e r m i ni ng r e as o nab l e ne s s . The El e ve nt h Ci r c ui tl ab e l s t hi s t he “c o n s u lta tio n re q u ir e m e n t,” a n d th e T h ir d C ir c u it r e c o g n iz e s th a t e r r o rin 16N o. 08- 20620

United States v. Jackson , 4 6 7F .3 d 8 3 4 , 8 3 9( 3 d C ir
. 2 0 0 6). 17 7 c a lc u la tin gth e g u id e lin e ra n g e “m a y p r e s a g e th e s e n te n c e u ltim a te ly s e t.” 17 W i th ou t t h e cor rect gu i d eli n e ra n ge , the cou rt va ri es from the w ron g p oin t. B ecau se t h e d istr ict courterr ed i n t h e app l i cat i on of t h e dep art u re pro vi si ons w e VA C A TE G ut i er r ez ’ s se nt enc e a nd R E M A N D f orr es ent enc i ng.