2003 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
12-22-2003 

# U SA v . Nune z P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1380

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Nunez " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 35. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/35NOT PRE CEDENT IAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

NO. 03-1380

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. FRANCISCO NUNEZ Appellant

On Appeal From the District Court of the Virgin Isla

nds (D.C. Crim. Action No. 02-cr -00097) District Judge: H onorab le Thom as K. M oore Argued December 10, 2003 BE FO RE : NY GA AR D, B EC KE R a nd S TA PL ET ON , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led December 22, 2003)

Douglas J. Beevers (Argued) Office of FederalPublic Defender P.O. Box 1327, 51B Kongens Gade Charlott e Amalie, St . Thomas, USVI 00804 Attorney

for Appellant2 Anthony J. Jenkins Office of the Unit ed State s Attorne y 5500 Veterans Buil ding, Sui te 260 Charlott e Amalie, St . Thomas, USVI 00802-6924 and David M. Nissan United Stat es Attor

ney Bruce Z. Marshack (Argued) Office of the Unit ed State s Attorne y 1108 King Street , Suit e 201 Christ ianst ed, USVI 00820 Attorney s for Appell ee

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

ST AP LE TO N, Circuit

Judge : Appellant

Francis co Nunez pled guil ty to unlawful entry

after deportation, in viol ation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a ) and (b) . The prese ntence r eport r ecommended a sixt een-le vel enhancement because Nunez had previ ously been convict ed of a “drug traffi cking offense ” within t he meaning of U.S.S. G. § 2L1.2(b)( 1)(A)(i ). The Dist rict Court accept ed this recommendation and sentence d Nunez to forty- six months of incarc erati on followed by three years of s upervis ed rele ase. He appeal s, as sert ing that this was rev ersible error.

Guideline § 2L1.2(b)( 1)(A)(i ) requi res a se ntenci ng court t o increa se a defendant’ s offense l evel by 16 where that

defendant has been previ ously deported a fter3

“a conviction for a fe lony that i s . . . a drug t

raffic king offense f

or which the s entence exceeded 13 months. ” A “drug traff icking of fense” i s defined in the Guidel ines

commen tary

as: an offense under

federal , st ate, or locallaw that prohibi ts the manufacture, import, export, distribut ion, or dispensing of a control led substance (or acounterf eit s ubstance) or the poss ession of a c ontro lled sub stance (or a co unterfeit subs tance ) with intent to man ufac ture, im port, ex port, distribut e, or di spense. U.S.S.G. § 2L1. 2, comment. , n.1( B)(ii i). The Guidelines commentary further provides that c onspira cies and attempt s to commit such offenses are inc luded in “ drug tr afficki ng offenses. ” U.S.S.G. § 2L1. 2, comment. , n.4.

Nunez concedes that

he was deported fol lowing his convict ion in a New York state court of violati ng N.Y. Pena l Law § 220 .39, which provides as follows:

Crim inal sale of a c ontro lled sub stance in the th ird deg ree: A perso n is gu ilty of crimin al sale o f a co ntrolled subs tance in the th ird d egr ee w her e he kno win gly an d un law fully s ells: 1

. A na rcotic. N.Y. P enal Law § 220.39 (1999). New York’s controlled substance stat ute defines “sell” as fol lows: Controlled substanc es: def initions : (1) “S ell” m eans to sell, exch ange , give o r dispo se of to ano ther, or to offe r or ag ree to do the sam e. N.Y . Penal La w § 2 20.00 (19 99). The New Y ork indi ctment charged Nunez with having “knowingly and unlaw fully sold to a polic e officer kn ow n to the Gra nd Ju ry, a narco tic drug , to wit, cocaine” on May 14, 1997, in t he County of

New Y ork.4 Wh en N unez pled g uilty to this ch arge, th e judg e que stioned him to establ ish the factualbasis f or his pl ea. The fol lowing exchange occ urred: THE C OUR T: Is i t tr

ue that in New York County on June 5, 1997, you knowingl y unl awfully sold t o another indivi dual a subs tance cont aining a narcoti c drug weighing one half ounce or

more. Is that tr ue? DEF END AN T NU NEZ : Yes. THE C OUR T: What was the drug? DEFEN DAN T NU NEZ: Cocaine. TH E C OU RT : Whe re did this sale occu r? DEFEN DAN T NU NEZ: Am ster dam Avenue TH E C OU RT : Wh at street? DE FE ND AN T N UN EZ : 141 st Stree t. THE C OUR T: Was that about six i n the eveni ng? D EF EN D A N T N U N EZ : I d on ’t r em em be r e xa ctl y. THE C OUR T: But, i t was lat er in t he day? I t wasn’t

in the m or ni ng , w as it? W as it m or e la ter in th e d ay. DE FE ND AN T N UN EZ : In th e af tern oon .. Appellee’ s App. at 17- 18.

Nunez insis ts that one can vi olate N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39 “wit hout proof of either posses sion or di stribution. ” Accordingl y, he concludes that hi s “conviction does not fit th e gu ideli ne d efin ition .”5 We are sati sfied t

hat Nunez’s New York convicti on was for a “drug tr aff ic ki ng o ffe nse ” an d that a s ix te en- le velenh anc ement wa s r equ ir ed. We may as sum e arguendo that t

here maybe periphe ral ca ses within the scope of § 220.39 that involve neither possession nor dist ribution. This does not aid Nunez, how ever. The offense Nu nez c om mitted , as des cribed by him a t the time of h is plea, is a t the he art of a statute prohibiting t

he trafficking in control led substances. Even when a cou rt applies a categor icalapproach t o determi ning the c haract er of a pri or conviction, a s Nunez urges us to do here, there i s an est ablis hed excepti on to the r ule that the s tatutoryelements and not the underlyi ng facts c ontrol . “When the ‘s tatutorydefini tion of t he prior offense’ i s broad enough to permi t convic tion bas ed on conduct t hat fal ls out side t

he scope of [the enh anc em ent p rov ision ], it be com es n ece ssar y to loo k be yond the s tatut e of con victi on. On ly in such c ases m ay the sen tencin g cou rt look to the fa cts of th e partic ular ca se in order t o determi ne whether the tri er of fact necessarily

found elements that would qua lify the o ffe nse ” un der the e nha nce me nt p rov ision

. United Stat es v. Watk

ins , 54 F.3d 163 ( 3d Cir. 19 95). H ere, the fact f inder – the N ew Yo rk jud ge – c learly fou nd all o f the e leme nts of a “drug traffic king offense” within t he meaning of U.S.S. G. § 2L1.2. The judgment of the Distr ict Court will be a ffirmed.

/s/ Walter K. St aplet on Circuit Judge