2005 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 9-20-2005 

# U SA v . R amire z -E rregun P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1579

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . R amir ez -E rr e gun" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 526. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/526NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 1579

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GR E GOR I O R AM I RE Z - E RR E GUN, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 03- cr - 00401) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. M i chae l M . B ay l s on

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember16, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember20, 2005)

OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. G r egor i o R ami r ez- E r r egun pl ed gui l t yt o char ges of unl aw ful entr yaft er depor t at i on and w as s ent ence d t o for t y - one mont hs i m pr i s onm ent . H e appe al s fr om t he s e n te n c e . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . I. B ecause the part i es ar e fam i l i ar w i t h the case, w e w i l l ci t e on l ythe p ert i nen tfact s. R ami r ez- E r r egun, a ci t i zen of M exi co, w as i ndi ct ed forunl aw ful r eentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed S ta te s a f te r d e p o rt a tio n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ) a n d 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (b )( 2 ). A ft erR ami r ez- E r r egun pl ed gui l t yt o t he i ndi ctm ent , the D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d R ami r ez- E r r egun t o for t y - one mont hs i m pr i s onm ent , a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e of thr ee y ear s , and a s peci al as s es s m entof $100. T h e D istri ct C o u rtb ase d R am ir ez -E rreg u n ’s sen tenc e o n the th en -m an d atory U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . U nderthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , the bas e l evel for t he o ffen se t o w hich R am i rez- E rr egu n p l ed g uil t yi s ei gh t . U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(a) . B ecause R ami r ez- E r r egun had pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyfortr ans por t i ng a n a lie n , h is s e n te n c e w a s in c re a s e d b ya le v e l o f s ix te e n . S e e U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( v i i ) . T h e p r i o rf e l o n ya l s o r a i s e d h i s c r i mi n a l h i s t o r yt o c a t e g o r yI I . He r ece i ved a thr ee- l evel adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t ypur s uantt o § 3E 1. 1( a) and ( b) , y i el di ng a t ot al offe ns e l evel of tw enty - one. U nderthe G ui del i nes , an adj us t ed offe ns e l evel of tw enty - one and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I r es ul t s i n a s ent ence3

ra n g in g f ro m f o rty -o n e to f

if ty -o n e m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. R a m ir e z -E rr e g u n f

ile d a M o tio n f

o r a D o w n w a rd D e p a rt u re p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 4A 1. 3( b) ( 1) . I n hi s m ot i on, R ami r ez- E r r egun ar gued thathi s pr i orconvi ct i on for t r ans por t i ng an al i en had di s pr opor t i onat el yi ncr eas ed hi s s ent ence beca us e i tr es ul t ed not o n ly in a s ix te e n -l e v e l in c re a s e , b u t a ls o ra is e d h is c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry f ro m I t o II . R a m ire z -E rre g u n a lso c laim e d th a t th e in c re a se d se n ten c e w a s n o t w a rra n ted b e c a u se h is i nvol vementi n t he or i gi nal cr i m e w as m i ni m al : he s i m pl ytr ans por t ed fourt een i l l egal al i ens w ho w er e al r eadyi n t he countr yt o a pl ace w her e theys oughtw or k and r ece i ved “an e xt r emel ys m al l amountof m oneyforhi s part i ci pat i on i n t hi s i l l egal act i vi t y . ” Supp. A pp. at18a. T h e G o v e rn m e n t o p p o s e d R a m ir e z -E rr e g u n ’s M o tio n f o r a D o w n w a rd D e p a rt u re . I n i t s r es pons e t o t he mot i on, t he G overnm entcont es t ed the “de fenda nt ’ s r eci t at i on of the

. . . fac t s of the off

ens e, s peci fi cal l ythatthe def endantdi d notr ece i ve anym oneyfr om t he i l l egal al i ens and onl yr ece i ved $250 t o dr i ve the i l l egal al i ens t o N or t h C ar ol i na fr om A riz o n a .” S u p p . A p p . at 3 2 a . M a ter ial w itn e ss e s “ sta ted th a t th e d e f e n d a n t ag re e d to t r ans por tt hem for $750 e ach t o be pai d aft ertheyr ece i ved w or k w i t h t he hel p of the defe ndant . ” I d. T h e D i s t r i c tC o u r td e n i e d R a m i r e z - E r r e g u n ’ s m o t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m t o f o r tyone mont hs i m pr i s onm ent , not i ng t hatthi s “w as the l ow es ts ent ence pos s i bl e underthe gui del i ne r ange a ppl i cabl e. ” R ecor d at41. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o not ed thatthe18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) ( 2) pr o v ide s t hat“a de fenda ntm ay 1 fi l e a not i ce of appea l . . . for r evi ew of an otherw i s e fi nal s ent ence i f the s ent ence w as . . . i m pos ed as a r esu ltof an i ncorr ect appl i cat i on of the s ent enci ng gui del i nes . ” B eca us e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt b e liev e d th a t th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s w e re m a n d a to ry , it s ap p li ca ti o n o f th e G u idelines w as i n co rrect. T h ere fo re, th is co u rt h a s ju risd ictio n o v e r R a m ire z -E rre g u n ’s a p p e a l. 4 se n ten c e w a s “ in th e m id d le o f th e g u id e lin e ra n g e if

th e d e f e n d a n t h a d b e e n se n ten c e d in C at egorynum berI . I ti s al s o w i t hi n t he r ange i f [the court ] had gi ven the def endanta one ort w o- l evel departur e. ” R ecor d at41. II. O n a p p e a l, R a m ire z -E rre g u n a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s f a ilu re to g ra n t h is M ot i on forD ow nw ar d D epartur e fr om the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w as an abus e of d isc re tio n . H e re p e a ts th e a rg u m e n ts h e m a d e in h is M o tio n f o r D o w n w a rd D e p a rtu re : t hathi s pr i orconvi ct i on di s pr opor t i onat el yi ncr eas ed hi s s ent ence and thatthe i ncr eas ed se n ten c e is n o t w a rra n ted b e c a u se h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e p rio r c rim e w a s m in im a l. T he G overnm entar gues t hatt hi s cour tdoes nothave j ur i s di ct i on overR ami r ezE rr egu n’s appeal. T here m aybe som e m eri tt o the G ov ernm ent’ s ar gu m ent butbecau se Ra mi r e z - E r r e g u n ’ s a p p e a l r a i s e s a Bo o k e ri s s u e , o v e rwh i c h we d o h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n , we 1 need no tres olve the is sue t he G ov ernm ent pr esses . III . In U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, th e S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at th e o n ce -m an d atory Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ar e “e ffe ct i vel yadvi s ory . ” U . S. , 125 S. C t . 738, 7575

( 2005) . A tt he t i m e of Ram i r ez- E r r egun’ s s ent enci ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d nothave the b en ef ito f th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s de cisi o n in B o o k er. T he G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entthatR ami r ez- E r r egun w ai ved anycl ai m s under B o o k e r, w h ile tru e , is n o t f a tal to R a m ire z -E rre g u n ’s a p p e a l. T h is c o u rt h a s th e p o w e r to addr es s R ami r ez- E r r egun’ s cl ai m underB ookereven i f thatcl ai m w as w ai ved. I n B agot v . A sh cro ft, 3 9 8 F . 3 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), w e stated : “T h is C o u rth as d iscreti o n ary pow ert o addr es s i s s ues t hathave be en w ai ved. . . . [I t ] m aycons i dera pur e ques t i on of l aw even i f notr ai s ed bel ow w her e r efus al t o r eac h t he i s s ue w oul d r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age o f ju sti ce o r w h ere the issu e’s reso luti o n is of p u b li c im p o rt an ce . ” (c it ati o n s o m itted). R a m ir e z -E rr e g u n ’s c la im is a q u e s tio n o f la w th a t r e q u ir e s n o a d d itio n a l f in d in g s o f

f a c t. Fai l ur e t o addr es s R ami r ez- E r r egun’ s cl ai m underB ookerw oul d r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce be caus e “a defe ndant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s m ayhave be en af fec t ed w her e the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byt r eat i ng t he G ui del i nes as m andat oryr atherthan advi s ory . ” U ni t ed St at es v. D avi s , 407 F. 3d 162, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) . T her efor e, not w i t hs t andi ng t he G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entand R ami r ez- E r r egun’ s couns el ’ s s t at ement t hat B oo ker has no beari ng on t he d et erm i nati on of R am i rez- E rr egu n’s appeal, w e add res s R am ir ez -E rreg u n ’s claim u n d er B o o k er. Fol l ow i ng B ooker , w e hel d i n D avi s thatdefe ndant s s ent ence d underthe pr i or m andat or ygui del i ne r egi m e w hos e s ent ence s w er e on di r ectappea l atthe t i m e of the B o o k er d ec isi o n sh o u ld h av e the irsen tenc ing ch all en g e re m an d ed to the D istri ct C o u rtO u r de cis io n in D av is m an d ates tha t R am ir ez -E rreg u n ’s 2 sen tenc e be v ac ated ev en tho u g h the G o v ern m en t arg u es th at th ere is n o m e rit to d e f

e n d a n t’s c laim th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng hi m a dow nw ar d departur e. f o r r e -s e n te n c in g p u rs u a n t to th e p ro n o u n c e m e n ts o f B o o k e r. D a v is , 4 0 7 F .3 d a t 1 6 5 . T her efor e, w e w i l l aff

i r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on butvaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng. 2

.