The district court did not err in denying her a reduction. In 1995, Ms. Quintanilla pled guilty to two state misdemeanors and received a diversionary sentence which she completed successfully. As a result, under California law the misdemeanors were apparently considered never to have occurred. In the sentencing for the federal crime in the instant case, the misdemeanors were added to her criminal history. We review the district court's legal interpretation of the guidelines de novo.
Sentences resulting from such convictions are to be counted.
In Hines , the defendant argued that a state battery conviction expunged under Arkansas law should not be included in the calculation of his criminal history for sentencing in his federal conviction. Similarly, we examine the basis of Ms. Quintanilla's earlier convictions rather than accepting the state terminology. Ms. Quintanilla pled guilty to the state charges and has at no point challenged the legal validity of that plea. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.