Opinion ID: 2747777
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Record of Conviction

Text: Under the modified categorical approach, we may determine the offense of Rodriguez’s conviction by consulting a limited class of documents approved by the Supreme Court in Shepard v. United States. The state record in this case consists of three documents: (1) an indictment; (2) an affidavit of probable cause; and (3) a sentencing sheet. The Government does not argue that we may consult the affidavit under Shepard. See Perez-Gonzalez, 667 F.3d at 628 (excluding from consideration an affidavit by the Deputy County Attorney filed in support of the charging document). We also may not rely on the indictment to determine Rodriguez’s offense because he pleaded guilty to a lesser-included offense of the charged offense. See United States v. Neri-Hernandes, 504 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that the district court erred in using the indictment to identify the defendant’s crime of conviction because he pleaded guilty to a lesser-included offense of the charged offense). Rodriguez concedes on appeal that Shepard permits consideration of the sentencing sheet to determine his crime of conviction. See United States v. Bethea, 603 F.3d 254, 259 (4th Cir. 2010) (considering a South Carolina sentencing sheet under the modified categorical approach). However, the parties dispute whether the sentencing sheet makes clear that Rodriguez was convicted of a drug trafficking offense under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. At the sentencing hearing for Rodriguez’s federal crime, the district court sided with the Government, finding that the sentencing sheet established that Rodriguez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute. We review that conclusion de novo. See Lopez-Salas, 513 F.3d at 177, 180 (rejecting under de novo review the district court’s inference from the indictment that the 8 Case: 13-51117 Document: 00512823529 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/03/2014 No. 13-51117 defendant intended to distribute the marijuana that he transported); United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 652–53 (5th Cir. 2008) (rejecting under de novo review the district court’s interpretation of the record as establishing that the defendant’s prior state conviction was for a crime of violence, as defined by the Sentencing Guidelines). The Government bears the burden of proving, based on Shepard-approved documents, that Rodriguez was “necessarily” convicted of a drug trafficking offense. See Henao-Melo, 591 F.3d at 805 (noting that “Taylor demands certainty when determining whether a past guilty plea ‘necessarily admitted elements of the generic offense’” referenced in federal law (quoting Shepard, 544 U.S. at 24, 26)). We find that the sentencing sheet makes clear that Rodriguez was convicted of a drug trafficking offense. The sentencing sheet states that Rodriguez pleaded guilty to “PWID/Dist. of Cocaine/LSD/other Narcotic drugs in Sch. I(b) & (c)/Sched. II, 1st offense,” in violation of section 44-53-370(b)(1). Of the various ways in which section 44-53-370(a) and its accompanying penalty subsection, (b)(1), may be violated, the sentencing sheet, albeit in abbreviated form, refers only to possession with intent to distribute and distribution. These offenses are “drug trafficking offenses” under the plain language of the Sentencing Guidelines, and Rodriguez does not argue otherwise. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. 1(B)(iv); cf. United States v. HerreraEscobedo, 440 F. App’x 365, 367–68 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding that a state court judgment specifying that the defendant’s conviction was for “UNLAWFUL DELIVERY PG 1–HEROIN” established that he had been convicted of a drug trafficking offense). Rodriguez argues that the phrase “PWID/Dist.” is “shorthand” or a statutory identifier that lacks the “specificity” necessary to identify the offense of conviction. He draws attention to our decision in United States v. Gutierrez- 9 Case: 13-51117 Document: 00512823529 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/03/2014 No. 13-51117 Ramirez, 405 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2005), which cited favorably the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2004). In Navidad-Marcos, the Ninth Circuit held that a California “abstract of judgment” identifying the defendant’s offense as “Transport/sell cont. sub.” simply recited the statute of conviction and did not necessarily establish that the defendant was convicted of the transportation and sale of drugs. Id. at 908. However, Navidad-Marcos relied on the unreliability of California abstracts of judgment, and its holding has been called into doubt by subsequent Ninth Circuit caselaw. See Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 879 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, South Carolina sentencing sheets, the record shows, are signed by the defendant, defense counsel, and the judge, and therefore are more reliable than California abstracts of judgment, which are “a clerical, not a judicial function.” Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d at 909. In addition, the abstract of judgment in Navidad-Marcos alluded to transportation, which the Ninth Circuit found does not necessarily constitute a drug trafficking offense. Id. at 908. By contrast, Rodriguez’s sentencing sheet identifies only distribution conduct that constitutes a drug trafficking offense. The sentencing sheet therefore makes clear that Rodriguez pleaded guilty to a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of the Sentencing Guidelines.