Opinion ID: 4554401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Never Served Any Time

Text: On appeal, Gomez-Colin argues for the first time that he did not serve any time on his conviction for violating his probation for child molestation in Georgia, and thus the sentence should not have counted as a “sentence imposed” or “sentence of imprisonment.” Note 2 to § 4A1.2 explains that “[t]o qualify as a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant must have actually served a period of imprisonment on such sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. n.2. In United States v. Chatmon, the Court wrote, “This provision is unambiguous. A sentenced imposed—but one for which the defendant does not serve time, perhaps because of suspension or stay—does not count as a ‘sentence of imprisonment’ for criminal-history purposes.” 565 F. App’x at 349. In Chatmon, the Court also explained that the government has the burden of proving that the defendant had actually served time. See id. at 353. Unlike in this case, in Chatmon, the defendant disputed whether he actually served any time in prison at the district court level. Id. at 351. -9- Case No. 19-5616, United States v. Gomez-Colin Based on Note 2 and Chatmon, Gomez-Colin’s argument is simple: he did not serve any time on his 5-year sentence (or at least the government has not proven that he did) because the sentence was “set aside,” and thus the enhancements should have been reduced. Gomez-Colin cobbles together the statements of the district court and the government below to make his case. Gomez-Colin cites the following statement from the district court to argue that the court found that he had not served any time: “[The Georgia Court] didn’t wipe the slate clean. He just said, don’t serve any -- I'm not going to have you serve any time, because you’re facing 57 months [in federal court].” Meanwhile, before the district court, the government stated, “Your Honor, as you pointed out, the defendant, his prior five-year sentence was simply -- the judge simply ordered that he did -- was not required to serve that sentence. That was a sentence imposed on him, but it was, as they said, set aside.” The government disputes that Gomez-Colin did not serve any time on his 5-year sentence. First, the government points us to the Georgia court’s order on July 11, 2011, when the court announced that Gomez-Colin’s “five years of [] probation is revoked to serve in the state penal system” and it “remanded [him] back into the custody of the sheriff’s department.” Next, the government argues that Gomez-Colin must have been in custody serving time on this sentence from July 2011 until October 2012 because the sentence was not “set aside” until October 3, 2012. At the same time, the Georgia court also “remanded [Gomez-Colin] to the custody of the United States.” Finally, the government asks us to take judicial notice of several documents from GomezColin’s proceedings in the Middle District of Alabama. One shows that Gomez-Colin moved “to receive credit for the time spent in [the state of Georgia’s] custody as credit towards his federal sentence.” The other shows the district court denying that motion, noting that “Mr. Gomez-Colin - 10 - Case No. 19-5616, United States v. Gomez-Colin requests that this court issue an order directing the Bureau of Prisons to calculate his time spent in the custody of the State of Georgia as a credit toward his federal sentence.”1 As previously discussed, we should apply plain-error review to this issue. Under plainerror review, Gomez-Colin must “show (1) error (2) that was obvious or clear, (3) that affected defendant’s substantial rights and (4) that affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Gomez-Colin’s claim fails because he cannot show that any error “affected [his] substantial rights.” See id. Taking all the evidence, including the documents that the government submitted for judicial notice, into account, it is clear that Gomez-Colin did serve some time in Georgia custody for child molestation. Thus, even if the district court erred by saying that Gomez-Colin had not served any time and assessed the enhancement any way, that error was not plain because it does not affect Gomez-Colin’s substantial rights as the evidence shows that he did serve time in Georgia on the child molestation conviction. On July 7, 2011, the Georgia court announced Gomez-Colin’s sentence for violating his probation on his child-molestation conviction from 2009. The Georgia court revoked his probation and ordered Gomez-Colin to serve “five years of [his] probation . . . in the state penal system.” The Georgia court then “remanded [Gomez-Colin] back into the custody of the sheriff’s department.” Nine months later, on March 14, 2012, Gomez-Colin noted, in his motion for the Georgia court to reconsider his sentence, that “[o]n or about July 7, 2011 [his] probation was 1 We hereby GRANT the motion to take judicial notice of these documents. Although we do not normally consider documents that were not considered below, here, Gomez-Colin did not raise the argument below, so the government was not given “an opportunity to come forward with evidence relative to the claim.” See Prater, 766 F.3d at 506. Further, Gomez-Colin has not objected to our consideration of these documents. As such, we will consider these documents in reaching our decision. - 11 - Case No. 19-5616, United States v. Gomez-Colin modified and [he] was ordered to serve five year [sic] in the penitentiary and the balance of probation was suspended.” On October 3, 2012, the Georgia court set aside its 5-year sentence for Gomez-Colin, noting that it was just now remanding him “to the custody of the United States.” Furthermore, the PSR shows that Gomez-Colin was not in custody for some other offense in Georgia.2 Finally, the evidence from the government’s motion for judicial notice is persuasive. In December 2013, after Gomez-Colin had been given over to the custody of the United States, he moved in federal court “to receive credit for the time spent in [the state of Georgia’s] custody as credit towards his federal sentence.” As such, the evidence shows that Gomez-Colin served time in prison in Georgia for child molestation. Because the evidence shows that Gomez-Colin did serve time in prison in Georgia for child molestation, Chatmon offers no substantive relief to Gomez-Colin. Because he cannot show that he will receive any relief below for the claimed error, any such error by the district court did not substantially affect Gomez-Colin’s rights.