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

### A u gu s t21,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH 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 ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 04- 2224 L UI S HE RN ANDE Z - GAR DUNO,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 04- 2226 M I GUE L J UAN R AM OS - E S P I NO,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 04- 2348 ANI VAL L E ONE L OR T E GAENR I QU EZ, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO-2- ( D. C. NO S. CR - 0 4 - 3 9 0 RB , 0 3 - CR - 2 2 3 0 RB , 0 4 - CR - 9 3 J P) T err i J . A bernathy , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( D avi d C . I gl es i as , U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyw i th heron the br i efs ) , L as C ruces , N ew M exi co, fort he U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca. M ar ci a J . M i l ner , L as C ruces , N ew M exi co, forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee H ernandez G ar duno and D efe ndant - A ppel l antO r t ega- E nr i quez. R osann e C am un ez, L as C ruces, N ew M exico, for D efen dan t -A pp el l ee R am osE s pi no. B efo re HENR Y , LU CE RO , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge. T hes e thr ee c r i m i nal appea l s pr es entt he ques t i on w hetherpr evi ous C ol or ado mi s demeanorconvi ct i ons fort hi r d- degr ee a s s aul tcons t i tut e cr i m es of vi ol ence under§ 2L 1. 2 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w hen the d e fe n d a n ts w e re se n ten c e d to les s th a n o n e -y e a r im p riso n m e n t. T h e d e fe n d a n ts cl ai m thatthe cr i m e- of- vi ol ence enhanc ementappl i es onl yt o cr i m es of vi ol ence thatar e aggr avat ed fe l oni es , ther ebyl i m i t i ng the enha ncementt o pr i or convi ct i ons i n w hi ch the defendantactual l ys erved a pr i s on t erm of atl eas tone y ear. O ne d i stri ctcou rtj ud ge acc epted this argum ent as t o tw o o f t he d efen dan t s, L ui s H ernandez - G ar duno and M i guel J uan R amos- E s pi no, butanotherdi s tr i ct courtj udge r ej ect ed the ar gum entas t o the thi r d defe ndant , A ni val L eonel O r t egaE nr i quez. M r . O r t ega- E nr i quez now appea l s hi s s ent ence , cl ai m i ng thathi s pr i or-3-

convi ct i on w as nota cr i m e of vi ol ence and thathi s s ent ence vi ol at es the rul e s et for th i n Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . T he governm entm ai nt ai ns that the s en tenc es th e d efen d an ts r ec eive d fo r th eir prior ass au ltco n v ict ion s are i rr el evantt o det erm i ni ng w hetherthei rconvi ct i ons cons t i tut ed cr i m es of vi ol ence , butacknow l edges thatthi r d- degr ee a s s aul ti s notal w ay s a cr i m e of vi ol ence . For the r eas ons s etfor th bel ow , w e RE M AND th e c a se s to th e d istric t co u rt w ith di r ect i ons t o vaca t e ea ch defendant ’ s s ent ence and r es ent ence . I . Backg r ound A l though eac h defe ndantpl eade d gui l tyt o i l l egal l yr eent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es , i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) ( 1) and ( a) ( 2) , and had pr i orC ol or ado m i s demeanorconvi ct i ons forthi r d- degr ee a s s aul t , w e br i efl yr evi ew t he fa ct s of e a c h d e fe n d a n t ’ s c a s e s e p a r a t e l y. A . Mr . Her nandez - G ar duno O n Sept ember17, 2003, M r . H ernandez - G ar duno w as convi ct ed of thi r dd e g re e m is d e m e a n o r a s s a u lt in v io la tio n o f C o lo ra d o la w . See C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 18 -3- 20 4. H e w as sent enced t o 2 4 d ay s’ i m pri sonm ent and 1 2 m on ths’ uns upervi s ed pr obat i on, and r emoved t o M exi co on O ct ober17, 2003. L es s t han thr ee mont hs l at er , on D ece m ber20, 2003, M r . H ernandez - G ar duno w as arr es t ed fo r i lle g a lly re e n te ri n g th e U n ite d S ta te s . H e p le a d e d g u ilty o n M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 4 . T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) cal cul at ed M r . H ernandez G ar duno’ s t ot al adj us t ed offens e l evel as 21. St ar t i ng w i th a bas e offens e l evel of-4-

8, the PSR appl i ed a 16- l evel i ncr eas e fora pr i orcr i m e of vi ol ence , and a 3- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . W i th a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof II I, t h e g u id e lin e s ra n g e w a s 4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s . A thi s s ent enci ng hear i ng, the di s tr i ctcour tconcl uded that“ther e i s no ques t i on butthat[the pr i orconvi ct i on] i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence , ” butfound thatt he appl i cabi l i tyof the enha ncementdepende d on the dur at i on of the ac tual s ent ence i m pos ed. C as e N o. 04- 2224, A pp. V ol . I , at99. M r . H ernandez - G ar duno di d not obj ectt o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cl as s i fi cat i on of thi r d- degr ee a s s aul tas a cr i m e of vi ol ence . H ow ever , becaus e M r . H ernandez - G ar duno r ece i ved onl ya 24- day s ent ence forhi s pr i oras s aul tconvi ct i on, the di s tr i ctcour tdecl i ned t o appl ythe c r i me o f v i o l e n c e e n h a n c e me n t . I ta l s o r e d u c e d h i s b a s e o ffe n s e l e v e l o f 8 b yt wo l evel s foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . W i th an adj us t ed offens e l evel of 6, and a crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryIII , the g u idelines ran g e w as 2 -8 m o n ths. T h e c o u rt s ent ence d M r . H ernandez - G ar duno t o 8 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch amount ed to tim e s e rv e d , a n d re c o m m e n d e d th a t h e b e re m o v e d f ro m th e c o u n tr y . B . Mr . R am os - Es

pi no M r . R amos- E s pi no l i kew i s e w as convi ct ed of thi r d- degr ee mi s demeanor a s s a u lt, in v io la tio n o f C o lo ra d o la w . See Co l o . Re v . S t a t . § 1 8 - 3 - 2 0 4 . He recei ved a 90 -dayj ai l sent ence a nd on e y ear of supervis ed p robat i on . M r. R am osE sp in o w a s d e p o rte d f ro m th e U n ited S tate s o n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 3 , b u t il leg a lly-5-

re e n ter e d th e c o u n try . H e w a s a p p re h e n d e d o n A u g u st 5 , 2 0 0 3 a n d p lea d e d g u ilty o n D e c e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 4 . T he PSR pr epar ed i n M r . R amos- E s pi no’ s cas e w as s i m i l art o thatpr epar ed i n M r . H ernandez - G ar duno’ s cas e. B as ed on the thi r d- degr ee a s s aul tconvi ct i on, i tappl i ed a 16- l evel enhanc ementfora pr i orcr i m e of vi ol ence . A ft erthe r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , i tr ecomm ended at ot al offe ns e l evel of 2 1 , crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f III, an d a se n tenc ing ran g e o f 4 6 -57 m o n ths. M r. R amos- E s pi no obj ect ed t o the enha ncement , ar gui ng thathi s 90- daypr i s on s ent ence di d nots at i s fyt he one y eari ncar cer at i on r equi r ementforaggr avat ed fel oni es . T he di s tr i ctcourts us t ai ned the obj ect i on, r el y i ng on t he def i ni t i ons se c tio n in th e c o m m e n tar yo f § 2 L 1 .2 , an d fin d in g th a t “w h e re it’s a sta te m i s demeanor , even though t he maxi m um penal tyi s 18 m onths and [the defe ndant ] has r ece i ved a s ent ence of 90 day s , s us pended, t hatdoes notm eett he d efinit ion o f felon yreq u ir ed b ythe g u idelines . ” C ase N o . 0 4 -22 2 6 , A p p . V o l. I, at 90 . A cc o rdin g ly , M r. R am o s-E sp ino ’s gu ideline ra n g e w as re d u ce d to 2 -8 m o n th s , a n d h e re c e iv e d a s e n te n c e o f tim e s e rv e d , w h ic h e q u a te d to 1 1 m o n th s . M r. R a m o s -E s p in o w a s s u b s e q u e n tly d e p o rt e d to M e x ic o . C . Mr . O r t ega- E nr i quez M r . O r t ega- E nr i quez pl eade d gui l tyt o thi r d- degr ee a s s aul ti n C ol or ado on O ct ober20, 2003. H e r ece i ved a four - dayj ai l s ent ence and tw o y ear s of uns upervi s ed pr obat i on. O n O ct ober24, 2003, he w as r el eas ed i nt o the cus t ody-6-

o f Im m ig ra tio n a n d C u s to m E n fo rc e m e n t a n d d e p o rt e d o n N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 . T hr ee da y s l at er , M r . O r t ega- E nr i quez w as found i n the U ni t ed St at es and cha r ged w ith ille g a l r e e n tr y . H e p le a d e d g u ilty to th a t c h a rg e o n J a n u a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 . T he PSR pr epar ed forM r . O r t ega- E nr i quez c al cul at ed a ba s e offens e l evel of 8, added 16 l evel s fora pr i orcr i m e of vi ol ence ( the C ol or ado thi r d- degr ee as s aul t ) , and s ubtr act ed 3 l evel s foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . T he C ol or ado as s aul tal s o i ncr eas ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yfr om cat egoryI t o cat egoryI I . B as ed on a n o ffe ns e l e ve l of 21 , a nd a c r i mi na l hi s t oryc a t e go ryof I I , the PSR re c o m m e n d e d a g u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 4 1 -5 1 m o n th s . A t sen tenc ing , M r. O rt eg a-E n ri q u ez fil ed a m o ti o n fo r a c ri m inal h ist o ry departur e, cl ai m i ng thatcat egoryI I overr epr es ent ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y . T he di s tr i ctcourtagr eed, and r educe d hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryt o cat egoryI , r educi ng t he r ange t o 37- 46 m onths . A l though M r . O r t ega- E nr i quez c oncede d thathi s pr i or C ol or ado convi ct i on w as a cr i m e of vi ol ence , he ar gued thathe di d notqual i fyfor the 16- l evel enhanc ementbeca us e hi s four - daypr i s on s ent ence pr ecl uded the p rio r c o n v ictio n f

ro m b e in g c o n sid e re d a n a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y . B a sin g its co n clus ion in p art on the g o v ern m en t’ s d ec isi o n to ap p ea l th e se n tenc es in M r. H e rn a n d e z -G a rd u n o ’s a n d M r. R a m o s-E sp in o ’s c a se s, th e d istric t co u rt, w ith

“ g re a t r e lu c ta n c e ,” reje c te d M r. O rt e g a -E n ri q u e z ’s a g g ra v a te d fe lo n ya rg u m e n t. C as e N o. 04- 2348, R . V ol . I I I , at6. A l though the courtnot ed thatcl as s i fy i ng t he pri or ass aultcon vict i on as a “fel on y , ” and therebyenh ancing t he b ase offen se-7-

l evel byonl yfourl evel s , w oul d have pr oduced a “fa i rs ent ence ” i n the r ange of 8- 14 m onths , t he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatan 8- 14 m onth r ange w as not“the s ent ence compel l ed bythe l anguage of the s ent enci ng gui del i nes . ” C as e N o. 04- 2348, Sent . T r . at25- 26. T he courtther efor e appl i ed the 37- 46 m onth r ange, and sen tenc ed M r. O rt eg a-E n ri q u ez to 3 7 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t, a se n tenc e the co u rt c h a ra c te ri z e d a s “ te rr ib ly u n fa ir .” C a s e N o . 0 4 -2 3 4 8 , R . V o l. I II , a t 6 . I I . D i s cus s i on T h e g o v e rn m e n t n o w c h a llen g e s th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to a p p ly the cri m e of v i olence enh ancem ent t o M r. H ernand ez-G arduno and M r. R am osE s pi no. M r . O r t ega- E nr i quez c ont ends t hatt he enha ncements houl d nothave been appl i ed i n hi s cas e. T he comm on i s s ue i n al l t hr ee c as es i s w hethert he fel on ycri m e of v i olence enh ancem ent appl i es onlyt o ag gravat ed fe l on i es, m eani ng convi ct i ons r es ul t i ng i n a pr i s on s ent ence of atl eas tone y ear . T he p arti es a lso raise so m e d ist inct arg u m en ts. F o r th e fir st t im e o n ap p ea l, M r. H e rn a n d e z -G a rd u n o a n d M r. R a m o s-E sp in o c o n ten d th a t th e ir th ird -d e g re e a ss a u lt c o n v ictio n s w e re n o t cr im e s o f v io len c e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t m a in tain s th a t th e ir fai l ur e t o advanc e thes e ar gum ent s bel ow pr ecl udes ourcons i der at i on. M r. O r t ega- E nr i quez c l ai m s thathi s s ent ence i s i ncons i s t entw i th the r emedi al hol di ng of B ooker . T he governm entagr ees , and conc edes t hatt hi s err orw as not h a rm les s. H o w e v e r, b e fo re tu rn in g to th e su b sta n c e o f th e c laim s p re se n ted in thes e a p p ea ls, w e m u st fir st co n side r w h ethe r th e a p p ea ls i n v o lving M r.-8-

H e rn a n d e z -G a rd u n o a n d M r. R a m o s-E sp in o w e re re n d e re d m o o t u p o n th e ir deport at i on. A . Moo tness Ne a rth e e n d o f

h i s r e s p o n s e b r i e f, M r . Ra mo s - E s p i n o a r g u e s t h a twe s houl d “al t ernat i ve[l y ] ” di s m i s s the governm ent ’ s appea l as m oot . A ppel l ee A ns w erB r . , C as e N o. 04- 2226, at16. Fora court , m ootnes s i s notan al t ernat i ve a rg u m e n t; w e h a v e “ a n a ffirm a tiv e o b lig a tio n to c o n sid e r th is [ju risd ictio n a l] ques t i on su a sp o n te . ” Ta n d y v . C ity o

f Wich ita , 3 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 9 0 n .1 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). M r. R a m o s-E sp in o c o n ten d s th a t b e c a u se h e h a s c o m p lete d h is se n ten c e s, h a s b e e n d e p o rte d , an d c a n n o t b e re se n ten c e d w ith o u t re e n ter in g th is countryi l l egal l y , the di s tr i ctcourti s w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o r es ent ence hi m . T he s ame ar gum entappea r s t o appl yw i th equal for ce t o M r . H ernandez - G ar duno beca us e he ha s al s o been de por t ed. C o m p let ion o f a sen tenc e a n d d ep o rt ati o n d o es n o t m o o t th e g o v ern m en t’ s a p p e a l o f

a n im p ro p e r s e n te n c e . Uni t ed Stat es v. A lvar ez - P i neda , 258 F. 3d 1230, 1235 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . E ven af t era defendanti s depor t ed, t he governm entm ay cont i nue t o al l ege a r emedi abl e i nj ury : her e, t he tr i al court ’ s fai l ur e t o i m pos e a s u ffic ie n tly le n g th ys e n te n c e u n d e r t h e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Meyers , 2 0 0 F .3 d 7 1 5 , 7 2 1 n .3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T hi s i nj ur ym aybe r emedi ed o n ly th ro u g h a n a p p e a l. See i d. A l though nei therdefe ndantcoul d appea rfor r es ent enci ng w i thoutr eent er i ng the countryi l l egal l y , i f ei therdefe ndantr etur ned-9-

t o the U ni t ed St at es “byextr adi t i on orbyr e- ent er i ng . . . on hi s ow n, he w oul d be s ubj ectt o arr es tand i m pr i s onm entforthe r emai nderof hi s s ent ence . ” A lvarezP i neda , 2 5 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 5 ; s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Vi l lam ont e-Mar quez , 46 2 U. S. 5 7 9 , 5 8 1 n . 2 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s a p p e a l i s th e r e fo r e n o tmo o t , a n d we p r o c e e d t o t h e me r i t s o f t h e c l a i m. B . Fe lo ny C r im e s o

f Vio le n c e a n dA gg r a v a te dFe lo n ie s u n d e r§ 2 L 1 .2 T he defendant s ar gue that§ 2L 1. 2 defi nes a “fel ony ” forpurpos es of the cr i m e of vi ol ence enhanc ementi n r efe r ence t o 8 U . S. C . § 1101. B eca us e 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) l i m i t s aggr avat ed fe l oni es t o cr i m es of vi ol ence “for w hi ch the t erm of i m pr i s onm ent[i s ] atl eas tone y ear , ” the defendant s ar gue that § 2L 1. 2 of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes al s o i ncl udes s uch a l i m i t at i on, no tw i thst and i ng an ap pli cat i on no t e t hat defi nes “felony ” as an o ffen se

“ punis habl e b yim p ri s o n m e n t fo r a te rm e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r.” U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 n. 2 ( emphasi s added) . T hei ri nt erpr et at i on i s nots uppor t ed bythe l anguage of the 2 0 0 3 S en tenc ing G u idelines , w h ich w ere u sed to ca lculate e ac h d efen d an t’ s s ent ence . S e c tio n 2 L 1 .2 p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: § 2L 1. 2. U nl aw ful l y E nt eri ng or R em ai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es (a ) B a se O ffe n se L e v e l: 8 (b ) S p e c ific O ffe n se C h a ra c ter istic (1 ) A p p lyth e G re a tes t:-10- If th e d e fe n d a n t p re v io u slyw a s d e p o rte d , o r u n law f u lly rem aine d in the U n it ed S tat es, af ter— ( A ) a convi ct i on fora f el ony thati s . . . ( i i ) a cr i m e of v i o l e n c e . . . i n c r e a s e b y 16 l evels ;

* * * ( C ) a convi ct i on foran aggr avat ed f el ony , i ncr eas e by 8 l evels ; (D ) a c o n v ict ion fo r an yo ther f el ony , i n c r e a s e b y 4 l evels . U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ). “F elon y ” a n d “a g g rav ated fe lon y ” a re ca ref u ll yd efined in the ap p li ca ti o n n o tes, w h ich a re a u tho ri tat ive u n less theyare u n c o n stitu tio n a l, vio late a fe d e ra l sta tu te, o r a re in c o n sis ten t w ith , o r a p lain ly e rr o n e o u s re a d in g o f, th e g u id e lin e . See St i ns on v. Uni t ed Stat es , 508 U . S. 36, 38 ( 1993) . Fel ony , “[f] orpurpos es of s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) ( A ) , ( B ) , and ( D ) , . . . m eans an yfe d era l, stat e, or loc al offe n se p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a term exce edi ng one y ear . ” U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2 n. 2. Speci fi cal l y“forpurpos es of s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , ” the G ui del i nes defi ne “a ggr avat ed fe l ony ” as havi ng “the m e a n in g g iv e n th a t term in se c tio n 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A ct( 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ) . ” Id. § 2 L 1 .2 n .3 (A ). R eadi ng § 2L 1. 2 as a w hol e, t hen, t her e ca n be no ques t i on thatt he G ui del i nes empl oya di ffe r entdefi ni t i on of “fel ony ” forpurpos es of s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) ( A ) than the def i ni t i on of “a ggr avat ed fe l ony ” forpurpos es of s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) ( C ) . T he r efe r ence t o 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) appl i es onl yt o s ubs ect i on-11-

(b) (1) (C ). U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2 n . 3(A ). T he en han cem ent r el evan tt o these cas es — fora fe l onythati s a cr i m e of vi ol ence , cont ai ned i n s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) ( A )

— has i t s ow n defi ni t i on of fe l ony . U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2 n. 2. B eca us e the appl i cat i on not es ar e nei theri ncons i s t entw i th, nora pl ai nl yerr oneous r eadi ng of, § 2L 1. 2, w e mustappl ythe def i ni t i on of fe l onycont ai ned w i thi n the appl i cat i on n o te s to d e fin e “ fe lo n y ” in s u b s e c tio n (b )( 1 )( A ). See St i ns on , 5 0 8 U .S . a t 3 8 . In a rg u in g th a t th e p h ra se “ fe lo n yth a t is . . . a c rim e o f v io len c e ” is d e fin e d b yre fe re n c e to 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(F ), d e fe n d a n ts a lso d ire c t u s to thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n United S tates v. Sa enz-Mend oza , 287 F. 3d 1011, 1012- 13 ( 10th C i r . 2002) i n w hi ch w e hel d thata s t at e mi s demeanorm aycons t i tut e an “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” under§ 2L 1. 2 as l ong as i ts at i s fi es the def i ni t i on of “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” i n 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) . I n r el y i ng on Sa enz-Mend oza , d e fe n d a n ts fa il t o re c o g n ize th a t Sa enz-Mend oza i nt erpr et ed the “a ggr avat ed fel ony ” enha ncementi n § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) , notthe “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” enhanc ementi n § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . B eca us e thes e ca s es i nvol ve onl ythe “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” enha ncement , the i nt erpr et at i on of w hi ch i s governed by d iffe re n t a p p lic a tio n n o te s , Sa enz-Mend oza is n o t in s tru c tiv e o n th is is s u e . T he def i ni t i on of “fel ony ” forpurpos es of § 2L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) i ncl udes any offe ns e p u n ish a b le bym or e than one y earof i m pr i s onm ent , i rr es pect i ve of the a c tu a l s e n te n c e im p o s e d . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . He rn a n d ez-C a stillo , 449 F. 3d 1127, 1130- 31 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hata defendantw ho r ece i ved a-12-

s us pended s ent ence of 157 day s i n j ai l w as convi ct ed of a n offe ns e puni s habl e by m o re tha n o n e-y ea r of inca rce rati o n b ec au se C ali fo rnia law p rov ided fo r a se n ten c e o f

u p to th re e y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t); c f. Un itedS ta tes v . No rr is , 319 F. 3d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( in te rp re tin g th e s a m e p h ra s e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 922( g) ( 1) and conc l udi ng that“[w ] hatm at t er s i s notthe ac tual s ent ence w hi ch the appel l antr ece i ved, butthe maxi m um pos s i bl e s ent ence ”) . B eca us e C ol or ado p ro v id e s fo r a ter m o f im p riso n m e n t u p to 1 8 m o n th s fo r th ird -d e g re e a ss a u lt, C o lo. R ev . S tat . § § 1 8 -3-2 0 4 , 1 8 -1.3-5 0 1 , the d efen d an ts’ co n v ict ion s w ere fel oni es under§ 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) , even though the convi ct i ons m aynothave qual i fi ed as aggr avat ed fe l oni es under8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) . T he di s tr i ct co u rtthere fo re e rred in co n clud ing that M r. H ern an d ez -G ard u n o ’s an d M r. R amos- E s pi no’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons w er e notfel onycr i m es of vi ol ence , but corr ect l yfound thatM r . O r t ega- E nr i quez’ s pr i orconvi ct i on w as a fe l onycr i m e of vi ol ence . C . C ol or ado Thi r d- D egr ee Ass aul tas a C r i m e of Vi ol ence A s i de fr om cont endi ng thatthei rpr i oras s aul tconvi ct i ons w er e not fel on i es, bo th M r. H ernand ez-G arduno and M r. R am os-Espino argue , for the fir st t i m e, thatthei rt hi r d- degr ee a s s aul tconvi ct i ons w er e notcr i m es of vi ol ence under § 2 L 1 .2 (b )(1 )(A ). M r. O rte g a -E n riq u e z c o n c e d e d th a t h is th ird -d e g re e a ss a u lt w as a crim e o f v iolen ce an d d o es n o t con testthat asp ec t of the d istri ct co u rt ’s co n clus ion . T h e g o v ern m en t con tend s tha t M r. H ern an d ez -G ard u n o an d M r.-13-

R a m o s -E s p in o h a v e w a iv e d th is c la im b yfa ilin g to ra is e it in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . H ow ever , a new l egal t heorycan be cons i der ed on appe al i f i t“pr es ent s an al t ernat i ve gr ound foraff i r m i ng a l ow ercour trul i ng on a pur e ques t i on of l aw . ” McMor r is v. C om m ’ rof Int er nalR eve nue , 2 4 3 F . 3 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 8 n . 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); J. E . R i l ey Inv. C o. v. C om m ’ rof Int ernalR eve nue , 3 1 1 U .S . 5 5 , 5 9 (1 9 4 0 ). W e the refo re c o n side r M r. H ern an d ez -G ard u n o ’s an d M r. R am o s-E sp ino ’s al t ernat i ve ar gum entthatthei rC ol or ado thi r d- degr ee a s s aul tconvi ct i ons w er e not cr i m es of vi ol ence . T h e Gu i d e l i n e s d e fi n e “ c r i me o f v i o l e n c e ” fo rp u rp o s e s o f § 2 L 1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) as anyof the fol l ow i ng: m ur der , m ans l aught er , ki dnappi ng, aggr avat ed assa u lt , fo rcible se x o ffen ses, st atuto ryrap e, sex u al ab u se o f a m ino r, rob b ery , arso n , ex tort ion , ex tort ion ate e x tens ion o f c red it , b u rglary of a dw el l i ng, oranyoffe ns e underfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal l aw that has as an el ementthe us e, at t empt ed us e, orthr eat ened us e of p h y sical fo rce ag ains t th e p erso n o f a n o ther. Id. § 2L 1. 2 n. 1( B ) ( i i i ) . R el y i ng on Uni t ed Stat es v. P er ez - Vargas , 414 F. 3d 1282, 1287 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , M r . H ernandez - G ar duno and M r . R amos- E s pi no cont end thatthei rpr i orconvi ct i ons , even i f fe l oni es , do notqual i fyas cr i m es of vi ol ence . I n P er ez - Vargas , w e c o n sid e re d w h e th e r a C o lo ra d o th ird -d e g re e a ss a u lt convi ct i on underC ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 3- 204— the s ame st atut e of c onvi ct i on at i s s ue i n thi s cas e— qual i fi ed as a cr i m e of vi ol ence under§ 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) of th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s. A p p ly in g th e c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h o u tli n e d in-14-

Shepar d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 544 U . S. 13 ( 2005) , and Tayl orv. Uni t ed Stat es , 495 U . S. 575 ( 1990) , w hi ch l ooks pr i m ar i l yt o the s t atut or ydefi ni t i ons of pr i or offe ns es , w e hel d thatC ol or ado thi r d- degr ee a s s aul ti s notnece s s ar i l ya cr i m e of v io le n c e . P er ez - Vargas , 414 F. 3d at1287. W e expl ai ned thatthi r d- degr ee as s aul tunderC ol or ado l aw i ncl udes act i ons w hi ch ca us e onl ythe i m pai r m entof a m e n ta l c o n d itio n . See C o lo . R e v . S tat. § § 1 8 -3 -2 0 4 , 1 8 -1 -1 9 0 1 (3 )(c ). A s a re su lt, notal l thi r d- degr ee a s s aul t s i nvol ve the us e, att empt ed us e, orthr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce. T o b e s u re , P er ez - Vargas d o e s n o t h o ld th a t a C o lo ra d o th ird -d e g re e a ss a u lt convi ct i on can never be a c r i m e of vi ol ence ; r ather , i tcl ar i fi es thatthi r d- degr ee as s aul ti s notal w ay s a cr i m e of vi ol ence . I f the cha r gi ng document s , pl ea agr eement , t r ans cr i ptof a pl ea c ol l oquy , ors ent enci ng courtfi ndi ngs of the pr i or sta te c o u rt c o n v ictio n d e m o n stra te th a t th e th ird -d e g re e a ss a u lt d id , in fa c t, i nvol ve the us e, att empt ed us e, orthr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce, then the part i cul ardefe ndant ’ s pr i oras s aul tconvi ct i on qual i fi es as a cr i m e of vi ol ence u n d e r § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( A )( ii) . See Shep ard , 5 4 4 U . S . at 26 . W e m u st th ere fo re r emand t hes e ca s es t o the di s tr i ctcour tfori tt o r evi ew thes e document s and det erm i ne w hethert he pr i orconvi ct i ons fal l w i thi n the def i ni t i on of “c r i m e of v io le n c e ” u n d e r § 2 L 1 .2 . W e n o te , h o w e v e r, t h a t b e c a u s e C o lo ra d o th ir d -d e g re e a s s a u lt is a “ fe lo n y ,” u n d er § 2 L 1 . 2 (b)(1 )(A ), (B ), an d (D ), b o th M r. H ern an d ez -G ard u n o an d M r.-15-

R am o s-E sp ino are eli g ible fo r sen tenc ing en h an ce m en ts un d er § 2 L 1 . 2 (b)(1 )(D ), forhavi ng pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of “ anyotherfel ony . ” The G ui del i nes ex p li cit lyinstruct d istri ct co u rt s to “ [a ]pp lythe [ g ]reatest” e n h an ce m en t un d er § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) . A ccor di ngl y , i f the di s tr i ctcour tconcl udes thatthe pr i or convi ct i ons w er e cr i m es of vi ol ence , then a 16- l evel enhanc ementi s appr opr i at e; i f the di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i nes thatther e i s nots uffi ci entevi dence t o fi nd thatt he pr i orconvi ct i ons w er e cr i m es of vi ol ence , then i ts houl d appl ya 4- l evel enhanc ementfora pr i orfel onyconvi ct i on. O f cour s e, the di s tr i ctcour tr et ai ns di s cr et i on t o varyfr om t he G ui del i nes r ange, as i tdeems a ppr opr i at e bas ed on the fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See Booker , 543 U . S. at259. D . B o o k er E r r or M r . O r t ega- E nr i quez a l s o cl ai m s thatthe di s tr i ctcour tcomm i t t ed nonc o n stitu tio n a l B ookere rr o r b ya p p lyin g th e G u id e lin e s in a m a n d a to ry m a n n e r. S e e Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d 727, 731- 32 ( 10th C i r . 2005) (e x p lain in g th a t n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l B ookererro r oc cu rs w h en a d istri ct co u rt appl i es the gui del i nes i n a mandat ory , r atherthan di s cr et i onary , fas hi on) . W her e, a s h e r e , th e d e fe n d a n tr a i s e s a S i x th Am e n d me n to bj e c t i o n a ts e n t e n c i n g , we re v ie w th e e rr o r fo r h a rm le s s n e s s . United S tates v. L ab ast i da -Segura , 396 F. 3d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 2 -4 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s c o n c e d e d th a t th e e rro r in M r . O r t ega- E nr i quez’ s cas e w as notharm l es s , and w e agr ee. N otonl ydi d the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence M r . O r t ega- E nr i quez a tthe bott om of the s ent enci ng r ange,-16-

w hi ch pl ace s us “i n the zone of s pecul at i on and conj ectur e” a s t o w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw oul d have a ppl i ed the s ame se nt ence underan advi s or ygui del i nes s y s te m , s ee i d. a t 1 1 4 3 , b u t th e d istric t co u rt e x p re ss e d “ g re a t re lu c tan c e ” in i m pos i ng t he 37- m onth s ent ence , char act er i zi ng i tas “t err i bl yunfai r . ” C as e N o. 0 4 -2 3 4 8 , R . V o l. I II , a t 6 . I I I . C oncl usi on We th e r e fo r e r e m a n d e a c h c a s e t o t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r tfo rr e s e n t e n c i n g . We r ever s e the s ent ence s i m pos ed on M r . H ernandez - G ar duno and M r . R amos- E s pi no beca us e thei rpr i orconvi ct i ons w er e fe l oni es t hatm ayhave qua l i fi ed as cr i m es of v io len c e . O n re m a n d , the d istric t co u rt sh o u ld c o n sid e r th e d o c u m e n ts o u tli n e d in Sh epa rdand det erm i ne w hethert he pr i orconvi ct i ons fal l w i thi n the def i ni t i on of “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” cont ai ned i n § 2L 1. 2 orw hethert heyar e “otherfel on[i es ] . ” W e al s o r ever s e M r . O r t ega- E nr i quez’ s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng underan advi s orygui del i nes r egi m e.