Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2004/11/04-4026.htm
Timestamp: 2019-01-21 19:54:58
Document Index: 550692551

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 16', '§ 1291', '§ 1101', '§ 1101', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 76']

04-4026 -- U.S. v. Hernandez-Rodriguez -- 11/12/2004
| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added | (40459 bytes) (29051 bytes)
v. No. 04-4026
JUAN HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, aka Antonio Diaz-Dolotreo, aka Juan H. Rodriguez,
(D.C. NO. 1:03-CR-119-DKW)
Mr. Hernandez-Rodriguez raises one issue on appeal ­ whether the district court erred in imposing an eight-level enhancement for previous conviction of an aggravated felony under United States Sentencing Guideline Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), because the offense meets the "crime of violence" definition in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo the district court's decision, we affirm.
Under the distended sentencing procedure required to analyze this case, we must look to a panoply of guidelines, statutes, and cases to determine the meaning of the terms at issue. First, pursuant to the guidelines, courts sentencing illegal re-entrants must "[a]pply the [g]reatest" of the following sentencing enhancements: "If the defendant previously was deported . . . after: . . . (C) a conviction for an aggravated felony, increase by 8 levels." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Unfortunately, this section does not define "aggravated felony." In order to define the term, we must consult Application Note 2, which notes that "[f]or purposes of subsection (b)(1)(C), 'aggravated felony' has the meaning given that term in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), without regard to the date of conviction of the aggravated felony."
Turning to this provision, an "aggravated felony" means "a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of Title 18 . . .) for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(f). Mr. Hernandez-Rodriguez's sentence of 365 days of imprisonment for the attempted riot conviction, with 305 days suspended, satisfies the year of imprisonment requirement.
Because Mr. Hernandez-Rodriguez's conviction for attempted riot is a misdemeanor under Utah law, it cannot qualify as a crime of violence under Section 16(b). Thus our operative concern ­ whether this somewhat unique Utah misdemeanor is an aggravated felony for guideline purposes ­ turns on whether this offense has an element requiring some kind of use of force against a person or property.
We review de novo the determination that a prior offense is an "aggravated felony" under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Venegas-Ornelas, 348 F.3d 1273, 1274 (10th Cir. 2003). Mr. Hernandez-Rodriguez contends that his conviction for attempted riot does not involve as an element the use of physical force against another person or the property of another. The Utah statute provides that:
2) Any person who refuses to comply with a lawful order to withdraw given to him immediately prior to, during, or immediately following a violation of Subsection (1) is guilty of riot. It is no defense to a prosecution under this Subsection (2) that withdrawal must take place over private property; provided, however, that no persons so withdrawing shall incur criminal or civil liability by virtue of acts reasonably necessary to accomplish the withdrawal.
According to § 16(a), we are to consider whether attempted riot is "an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another." Because this statute is written in the disjunctive, however, it is not clear that a generic charge under the statute has the requisite force element. To decide whether "attempted riot" is a crime of violence under § 16(a), we apply the categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). See United States v. Reyes-Castro, 13 F.3d 377, 379 (10th Cir. 1993).
In determining whether the elements of an offense meet the guideline formulation of an aggravated felony, we look to the category of crime defined by that offense. This "generally requires the trial court to look only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense." Taylor, 495 U.S. at 602. This categorical approach, however, "may permit the sentencing court to go beyond the mere fact of conviction in a narrow range of cases where a jury was actually required to find all the elements of [the generic crime]." Id.
Statutes phrased in the disjunctive are akin to, and can be readily converted to, statutes structured in outline form, with a series of numbered or letter elements . . . . Such statutes may sometimes more clearly invite further inquiry into exactly which subsection the defendant violated. The exercise of analyzing disjunctive statutes for an invitation to further inquiry is much more difficult . . . for it poses the vexing question of how far below the judgment or plea colloquy the court may look.
Singh v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 144, 2004 WL 2072113, 13 (3rd Cir. Sept. 17, 2004) (emphasis supplied). We agree with the defendant that § 76-9-101, specifically subsection (c), reaches behavior that may or may not encompass conduct that constitutes a crime of violence and conduct that does not. See also Aplt's App. at 29 (Sentencing Tr. dated Jan. 26, 2004) (government conceded that "if the prosecutor only alleged [a violation of subsection] C we have an argument").
Nevertheless, in this situation, as in other cases interpreting ambiguous statutes, our categorical approach allows us to "look to the charging paper and judgment of conviction in order to 'determine if the actual offense the defendant was convicted of qualifies as a crime of violence.'" Venegas-Ornelas, 348 F.3d at 1275 (quoting Sareang Ye v. INS, 214 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000)); see United States v. Smith, 10 F.3d 724, 734 (10th Cir. 1993) ("The problem in this case is that Defendant's statutory count of conviction, section 459 (and 460(b) [of the California Penal Code]), is ambiguous because it encompasses burglaries of dwellings and non-dwellings, alike," and, after reviewing the official charging papers and sentencing documents in the record, holding Defendant's second-degree burglary conviction not to be a crime of violence). Nevertheless, when reviewing the charging documents, the judgment and/or the plea agreement, unless embodied therein, "we may not consider the particular facts surrounding the conviction." Venegas-Ornelas, 348 F.3d at 1275.
and in the course and as a result of the conduct, D. Gonzales suffered bodily injury.Aplt's App. at 35 (emphasis supplied).
Finally, the government encourages us to consider the "incorporated police report," which establishes that Mr. Hernandez-Rodriguez was actually charged under subsection (1)(a) of the riot statute. See Aple's Br. at 14 ("The police report further limits the charged offense to subsection (1)(a)."). Mr. Hernandez-Rodriguez maintains that "[p]olice reports of the instant conduct have not been made available to [him.]" Aple's Supl. App. at 17. The government states that "[t]he police report established that Hernandez-Rodriguez 'got into the fight.'" Id. at 14. Contrary to the government's assertions, the police report is not part of our record, and is neither attached to, nor incorporated by, the information. See Aple's Br. at 11 (citing Smith, 10 F.3d at 734 (allowing examination a police report, but one that was "apparently incorporated into the Defendant's charging papers")). We cannot consider the police report, as it was not part of the "charging paper and judgment of conviction" or the "plea . . . and findings of this court." Venegas-Ornelas, 348 F.3d at 1275.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2004/11/04-4026.htm.