Opinion ID: 704816
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Possible Improper Use of the 1992 Sentencing Guidelines

Text: 18 Verdugo's Presentence Report relied upon the November 1, 1992 version of the Guidelines. However, the report states: 19 According to the Government, the evidence adduced at trial indicated that Verdugo continued in the conspiracy through the end of 1989 and early 1990.... In fairness to the defendant, however, it is noted that the Indictment references his last act as occurring August 30, 1988. If his actions had ended on that date, it could limit the Guidelines to those effective November 1, 1987. This would reduce the Total Offense Level.... 2 20 Verdugo argues that confusion exists on the record as to whether the district court, relying on the above excerpt from the Presentence Report, intended to apply the 1987 Guidelines. Verdugo's argument is based on the following colloquy between the court and defense counsel at his sentencing hearing: 21 DEFENSE COUNSEL: And in this instance we have a long going conspiracy, which the Court is well aware of, where Mr. Verdugo comes in under the prosecution's theory and what the Court found him guilty of, under a very small ancillary part of the continuing scheme and is never heard from again. And yet the presentence report would seek to charge him with the totality of the conspiracy as far as what his imprisonment liability should be. 22 COURT: Let's just take a look at page 13 of the presentence report, for example, at paragraph 50 in this paragraph the last sentence it says--well, just before that, second before the end, it says, In fairness to the defendant, however, it's noted that the indictment references his last act as occurring August 30, 1988. His actions had ended on that date. It could limit the guidelines of those effective November 1, 1987. This would release [sic] the total offense level as will be reflected below. 23 Is it your understanding the probation officer then did reduce the level? 24 DEFENSE COUNSEL: That is correct, your Honor. If we go on to 53 he is giving 13 points. 25 COURT: Yes. 26 Verdugo's counsel misspoke when he informed the court that the probation officer had reduced Verdugo's offense level. The 13 points to which he referred were the Specific Offense Characteristics points added to Verdugo's Base Offense Level of 6. However, those additional 13 points are based on the 1992 Guidelines; under the 1987 Guidelines, Verdugo would have received only 11 additional points. 27 Under the 1992 Guidelines, Verdugo's Adjusted Offense Level was 21. Under the 1987 Guidelines, his Adjusted Offense Level would have been 19. Because the district court gave Verdugo a three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, it sentenced him based on an offense level of 18, which carries with it a term of 27 to 33 months. If the court had intended to sentence Verdugo based on the 1987 Guidelines--a point that simply cannot be determined from the transcript of the sentencing hearing--Verdugo's offense level would have been 16, which carries with it a term of 21 to 27 months. 28 The district court clearly expressed its intent to sentence Verdugo to the absolute minimum period of incarceration permitted by the Guidelines. If the court had applied the 1987 Guidelines (which it incorrectly may have thought it was doing), Verdugo's sentence would have been six months shorter. 29 The Government counters Verdugo's argument by identifying evidence adduced at trial that suggests that Verdugo's participation in the conspiracy continued into 1990. If Verdugo did in fact participate in the conspiracy as late as 1990, the more recent version of the Guidelines would apply and Verdugo's 27 month sentence would be appropriate. 30 The record simply does not reflect, however, whether the court found that Verdugo's participation continued until 1990, or whether it ended earlier. The court quite possibly believed that it was sentencing Verdugo to the minimum period of incarceration under the 1987 Guidelines. If so, it was in error. Because the record requires clarification on this point, we remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings on Verdugo's sentencing. See, e.g., United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir.1994) (remanding case for resentencing because of trial court's confusion on a relevant issue).