W e h a v e j ur i s d i c t i o n t o a d d r e s s o nly t he i s s ue s p e c i f i e d i n t he CO A. To 1 th e e x te n t t h a t D a n ie ls ra is e s o th e ris s u e s , w e d o n o t a d d r e s s th e m . S ee L ackey v. Joh n son , 1 1 6 F .3d 1 4 9 , 1 5 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30558 Su m m ar yC al endar

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. D A N N YD A N IE L S , 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 ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana
B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: Da n n y Da n i e l s , fe d e r a l p r i s o n e r # 2 9 3 9 5

- 1 7 9 , s e e k s r e l i e f u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 225 5. Th e di st ri ctcourtden i ed D a n iels’s coll ater alatt ack, bu tt h i s c ou rt gr ant e d ac e r t i f

i c at e o f a ppe al ab i l i t y ( CO A) o n t he l i m i t e d i s s ue “w h et h e rhe shou l d be resentenced because one of t h e of fen ses u pon w h i ch hi s c areer of fen der
s ta tu s w a s b a s e dh a s b e e n in v a lid a te d .” W e n o w a ffir m , h o ld in gth a t D a n ie ls 1
s ho ul d no tb e r e s e nt e nc e d. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30558

S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ash i ngt on , 480 F. 3d 309, 314- 15 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) 2 (d e sc rib in gD a n iels’s ca se inth e co n te x t of h is d ire ct a p p e a l). U
. S. S ENT ENC I NG G UIDELI NES M ANUAL§ 4 B1. 1(a)
. Dani el s w as sentenced 3 u n der t h e 200 3 versi on of t h e gu i del i n es. U
. S. S E NT ENC I NG G UIDELI NES M ANUAL§ 4 B 1 .2 c m t . n .1 (e m p h a sis a d d e d). 4 Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Jo s hua , 3 0 5 F .3d 3 5 2 , 3 5 2 -5 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). 5 2 I
. Bac kg r o und
In 20 0 4 , D a n i els plea d ed gu i l ty to con sp i ri n g to p oss ess w ith in te n t t o d istr ibute m ore t h an 100 ki l ogram s of m arij u an a. A tsentenci n g, t h e di st ri ct court f ou n d D an i el s t o be a career of fen der, w h i ch enh an ced D an i el s’ s s en t en ce bya bo utade c ad e . Al lt o l d, t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts e nt e nc e d Dani e l s t o 2 35 m o nt hs i n pr i s o n. 2 U nde rt he s e nt e nc i ng gu i de l i ne s , t he de fe nda nti s ac ar e e ro f fe nde ri f

he

“h as at l east t w o pri or f el on y convic t i on s o f ei t h er a c ri m e of vi ol en ce ora c o n troll ed su b stan ce of fen se.” A p ri or f

elon y con victi on “m ea n s a p ri or a d u lt 3 fe de r al o r s t at e c o nvi c t i o n f o ra n o f fe ns e pun i s hab l e b y de at h o ri m pr i s o nm e nt fo rate r m e x c e e d in go n e y e a r , re g a r d le s s o f w h e th e rs u c h o ffe n s e is s p e c ific a lly de s i gna t e d a s afe l o ny and regardle ss of t h e actu a l s ente n ce i mposed .” T h is 4 court h as held t h at gui l t y pl eas res u l t i n g i n deferred adj u di cat i on s and ot h er d iv e r s io n a r yd is p o s itio n s co u n t t o w a r dth e ca r e e r -o ffe n d e rto ta l. O u rru le 5 d erive s f

rom the plain text of t h e se n ten ci n gg u id e lin es, w h i ch states: “A di versi on ary di sposi t i on res u l t i n g f rom a f i n di n g or adm i ssi on of gu i l t , or a plea
o f n o lo co n te n d e r e , inaju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in gis c o u n te d
. . . e v e n if aco n v ic tio n isN o. 08- 30558

U
. S. S ENT ENC I NG G UI DE L I NES M ANUAL§ 4 A 1 .2 (f); see U
. S. S ENT ENC I NG 6 G UI DE L INES M AN UAL§ 4 B1. 2 c m t . n. 3 ( “ The pr o vi s i o ns o f § 4 A1. 2 (D e f

i ni t i o ns and I ns t r uc t i o ns f

o r Com put i ng Cri m i nal H i s t o r y) ar e a ppli c ab l e t o t he c o unt i ng o f co n v iction s u n d e r § 4 B 1 .1.”). U
. S. S ENT ENC I NG G UIDELI NES M ANUAL§ 4A 1. 2 c m t . n. 9. 7 Un itedS ta tes v. Nich o ls , 3 0 F .3d 3 5 , 3 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). 8 3 notf or m al l y e nt er ed .
. . . ” Th e defer r ed adj udi c at i on m ust“i nvolve[] a j udi c i al 6 d eterm i n a ti on of gu i l t or an ad m i ssion of gu i l t i n op en cou rt, ” th u s refl ecting“a po l i c y t hat de fe nda nt s w ho r e c e ive t he be ne f i t o f a r e hab i l i t at ive s e nt e nc e a nd
c o n tin u e to co m m it c r im e s s h o u ldn o t b e tr e a te dw ith fu r th e rle n ie n c y .” 7 A s o n e o f h is tw o p r io rc o n v ic t io n s , t h e d is t r i c tc o u r tc o u n t e dD a n ie ls ’s d e fe r r e da dju d ic a tio n fr o m T e x a s in 2 0 0 3 fo ra g g r a v a te da s s a u lt w ith ad e a d ly
w ea p on . D a n i els plea d ed gu i l ty to th e ch a rg e b u t rece ive dcom m u n i ty supervi si on. There i s no quest i on t hatatt he t i m e iti m pos ed s ent enc e i n 2005 th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt l a w full y in cl u d ed t h i s d ive rsion a rydisp ositi on i n i ts c ar e e r - o f

fe nde rc al c ul at i o n. I n 2006, t hough, t he Texas c our t di sm i ss ed t he agg r avat ed as sa ul tc harge att he c o nc l us i o n o f D ani e l s ’ s t hr e e - ye art e r m o f c o m m uni t y s uper vi si on. D ani e l s no w c l ai m s t hathe i s e nt i t l e d t o r e s e nt e nc i ng o n t he fe de r alc o nvi c t i o n, becau se one of

t h e t w o c ri m es un derl yi n g h i s c areer- of fen der st atus ha s been di sm i ssed. B ecau se § 225 5 rel i ef m ay be “app ropri ate w h en a st ate c on vi ct i on t hatf or m ed t he bas i s of

c ar ee rof

fend er stat us i s i nval i dat ed af t ert he f

ede r al
s e n te n c in g ,” w e p r o c e e dto th e m e r its
. “In t h e c o n te x t o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , th is 8N o. 08- 30558

Un itedS ta tes v. Ca v itt , 5 5 0 F .3d 4 3 0 , 4 3 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). 9 Uni t e d St ate s v. Sant ana , 220 F. A pp’ x 283, 286 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) 10 (u n p u b li sh e d ). U
. S. S ENT ENC I NG G UIDELI NES M ANUAL§ 4A 1. 2 c m t . n. 6. 11 4 c our tr evi ew s a di st r i c tc our t ’ s fa ctu a lf i ndi ngs f

orc l earer r orand i t s l egal
c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o .” 9
II . A n a ly s is
A l t h ou gh w e h ave n ever d eci ded the p reci se i ssue presented i n t h i s c ase, w e h a v e in a d iffe r e n t c a s e fo r e s h a d o w e dth e o u tc o m e h e r e , n o tin g : “[Aca s e ] in
w h i ch a d efen da n trec eiveda diversi on ary di sposi t i on , such a s deferred adj u di ca t i o n o ra s s i gnm e ntt o as ubs t anc e a bus e pr o gr am , a nd a f t e rt he def endantc om pl et ed t he diver si onar y di spo sit i on t he u n d erl yi ng of fens e w as di sm i ss ed .
. . [r em ai ns] a v al i d bas i s f ora c ar ee rof

fenderdes i gnat i on. ” That 10 persua sive au t h ori t y gu i des u s here. T h e rul e, of course, is n otu n equ ivocal
. Ind eed, “ [ s] en t en ces resul t i n g f rom convic t i on s t h at . . . ha ve been revers ed or vacated b e ca u se of error s of l aw or b e c a u s e o f s u b s e q u e n tlyd is c o v e r e de v id e n c e e x o n e r a tin gt h e d e fe n d a n t, o r. . . h a v e b e e n ru le dco n s tit u tio n a llyin v a lid in a p r io r c a s e a r e n o t to b e co u n te d .” 11 D a n ie ls , h o w e v e r , h a s n o t s h o w n th a t t h e T e x a s co u r t d is m is s e dh is a s s a u lt
c har ge f

o ra n e r r o ro f

l aw or f

o rne w ly f

o und e xo ne r at i ng e vi de nc e . To t he
c ont r ar y, and as t he di st r i c tc our tnot ed, t he Texas c our ts ee m s t o have d i sm i sse dthe ch a rg e beca u se D a n i els’ s term of com m u n i ty su p erv i sion cam e to a c l o se an d T exas l aw r e quir e s j udg e s i n t ho s e s i t uat i o ns t o di s m i s s t heN o. 08- 30558

T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . ar t . 42. 12. 5(c )
. W e f urt her not e t hat und erTexas 12 l aw , “ upon co nvi cti on of a s ubse quentof

fens e, t he fac tt hatt he def endanthad p r e v io u s lyre c e iv e dco m m u n itys u p e r v is io n w ith a d e fe r r e d a dju d ic a tio n o f g u ilt sha l lbe adm i ssibl e bef ore t h e co u rt or j u ry t o be consi dered on t h e i ssue of p en a l ty. ” T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . a rt. 4 2 .12 .5(c )(1). S ee U
. S. S ENT ENC I NG G UIDELI NES M ANUAL§ 4A 1. 2 cm t . n. 10 (“Anu m ber 13 o f j ur i s di c t i o ns hav e va r i o us pr o c e dur e s pur s uantt o w hi c h pr e vi o us c o nvi c t i o ns m a y b e se t aside or th e d efen d a n t m a y b e p a r d o n e d f or re a son s u n related to i nno c e nc e orer r o r s of l aw, e. g. , i n or de rt o re s t o r e civilri ght s ort o re m o ve t he st i gm a associ ated w i t h a cr i m i n alconvi ct i on . Sen t en ces resul t in gfr o m such co n v iction s a re to b e co u n te d .”)
. 5 i n d i ctm en t un d erlyingth e d eferre da dj u d i ca ti on : “O n ex p i ra ti on of a com m u n i ty s upe r vi s i o n per i o d .
. . i f t he j udg e ha s no tpr o c e e de d t o a dj udi c at i o n o f g ui l t , t he ju d g e s h a ll d is m is s th e p r o c e e d in g s a g a in s t th e d e fe n d a n t a n dd is c h a r g e h im .” 12 U ltim a te ly , D a n ie ls p le a d e d g u ilty in T e x a s c o u r t to a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u lt
w ith ad e a d lyw e a p o n , fo rw h ic h h e re c e iv e dd e fe r r e da dju d ic a tio n . T h is defer red adj u di cat i on w as di sm i ssed al m ostas a m att er of cou rs e – an d f

or r e a s o n s h a v in gn o th in gto d o w ith “ i n n o c e n c e o re r r o r s o f la w .” D a n ie ls 13 pre se nt s no e vi denc e t o t he c ont r ar y. Th e l aw t hus r equi r es t hatD ani el s – a r e c i divi s to f

fe nde r–m ayno tdo ubly be ne f i tf r o m t he f

o r t une o f

al e ni e nt di sposi t i on i n t h e T exas courts – a dis posi t i on subsequ en tt o w h i ch h e com m i t t ed
a s er i ou s fede r alc r i m e. N ot w i t hst andi ng i t s pro c edur aldi sm i ss al , hi s Texas guil t y pl e a m ayc o untt o w ar d Dani e l s ’ s s t at us a s ac ar e e ro f fe nde rund e rt he sentenci n g gu i del i n es. AF F I RMED.